Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Falmouth Water Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRIDGE TOLLS (BARLBY AND SELBY).

Sir CHARLES WILSON: I beg to present the following Petition:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned being inhabitants of the Townships of Barlby and Selby in the East and West Ridings of the County of York and adjoining villages.
Sheweth as follows: The East and West Ridings of Yorkshire near Selby are divided by the Tidal and Navigable River Ouse. In the year 1795 by virtue of an Act of Parliament a bridge was built over the river connecting the two Ridings and the township of Barlby and the Market Town of Selby.
By virtue of the said Act certain Tolls became and are still payable by persons and vehicles using the said bridge and these Tolls have become a great burden upon the inhabitants and others, and a serious menace to the trade and prosperity of the neighbourhood comprising large industrial works and including a large agricultural area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Parliament will take such steps as will relieve the inhabitants and others users of the said Toll Bridge from these onerous tolls and thus make the King's Highway free.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
Signed by 3,333 persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (ABYSSINIAN RAIDS).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of inviting the Governor-General of the Sudan to prepare for publication, in the form of a White Paper, the number of raids, with casualties, made by Abyssinians into the Sudan during the last 15 years?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. The necessary information is already in process of compilation, and a White Paper will be published in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, NICE (ARRESTS).

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest of Mr. Harry Ball, of Harrogate, at Nice, France, charged with making bets on a racecourse; and whether the British consular representative at Nice has taken any steps to secure the release of this British subject, or have any representations been made to the French authorities on the subject?

Mr. MERRIMAN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the recent arrest at Nice, France, of Mr. Joshua Moulineaux, of Levenshulme, Manchester, and his detention for three days on an allegation of bookmaking at Nice races: and whether any representations have been, or will be, made to the French authorities on the subject?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have received a report on the matter from His Majesty's Consul at Nice. Mr. Ball and Mr. Moulineaux were charged on 20th January with violating the French law which forbids any but pari mutuel betting, and were committed to prison, but released on bail on 23rd January. The case is expected to be tried after Easter. There are no grounds for any representations to the French authorities.

Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these two persons, when arrested, were asked to take off their clothes and were left in a cell, wearing only their underwear; and does he not think that is sufficient ground for making representations?

Mr. HACKING: I know these persons were searched. I did not know they were stripped. Possibly the hon. Member is exaggerating.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see if I have exaggerated?

Mr. HACKING: There is no good in making representations at the moment. The case is sub judice, as the hon. Member knows, and it is very hard to interfere in any way, until the case has been dealt with by the Courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (HANKOW).

Sir BASIL PETO: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to take steps to resume British control over the British Concession at Hankow?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my hon. Friends the Members for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) and South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) on the 17th and 23rd of November respectively. They hold good.

Sir B. PETO: Then there is no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government, due to the fact that the Red Government, to whom this surrender of British rights was made, has now disappeared into the blue?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. No change has taken place.

Mr. LOOKER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations for payment of the interest in arrear on the Hankow municipal debentures or as to whether the municipal administration of the late British Concession may now be considered to be working satisfactorily or not?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question,
I have no information beyond that given to him on the 20th of February. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that the municipal administration is working as well as I could wish, but a recent telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow says that, speaking generally, the Sino-British Council is functioning as well as can be expected in the difficult circumstances of the moment.

Mr. LOOKER: Are the Chinese in a majority on the municipal council at the moment?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will please give me notice of a question of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PORTUGAL (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Portugal is seeking for a loan through the League of Nations; and, whether His Majesty's Government will assure the House that it will not be a party to any such loan unless and until Portugal has abandoned all flag discrimination contrary to the principles laid down by the League of Nations in the Maritime Ports Convention?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have for some time past been making representations to the Portuguese Government on the subject of flag discrimination, and I understand that a decree will shortly appear abolishing all flag discrimination of any kind in Portugal and the Portuguese Dominions. The question of a loan must be dealt with on its own merits.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS CONVENTION.

Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, recently signed at Geneva, has yet been ratified by any other country; and whether this House will have an opportunity of discussing the Convention before ratification by this country?

Mr. HACKING: The Convention has not yet been ratified by any country. As
explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question on 15th November last, the Convention provides for a further Conference to be held in the Summer to determine the conditions required for the coming into force of the Convention, and it will not be possible to advise ratification before the results of that Conference are known.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Does the signature on behalf of the British Government involve any reason why that treaty should be taken into consideration in connection with matters of internal policy in our own country?

Mr. HACKING: I did not catch the middle part of the question.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: As I understand it, the Convention has been signed. Does the signature of our representative mean that we will have to take it as ratified, as far as we are concerned, internally?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. Since the Convention was signed some reservations have been handed in by other Powers. That is one reason why there should be a new Conference. It will probably be in June. Nothing is binding at all, as far as the present signature is concerned. Ratification is necessary before anything is binding.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that answer mean that, while the question is pending, no more import restrictions will be imposed or introduced by the present Government?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. It has not that meaning.

RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the banishment of the Zinovieff left wing element from the Government of Russia, His Majesty's Government will now reconsider the question of the recognition of the Soviet. Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Nothing has occurred since the incident referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman
which would justify His Majesty's Government in considering the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman, by any chance, seen the speech of M. Rykoff recently, saying that the Russian Government were prepared to give guarantees, if the British Government required them, as to non-interference in domestic affairs?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not seen that speech, as far as I can trust my memory; but if the Soviet Government wish to give assurances of that kind, or are prepared to give assurances of that kind, they can give them in the proper manner, and they will be considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is the proper manner?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Through diplomatic channels.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But there is no communication?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. They can make their representations through the diplomatic representative who is in chargo of Russian interests in this country.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Have the Soviet Government given any assurances in regard to the repayment of their debt?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that a new condition?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Have the British trade unions resumed relations with the Russian trade unions?

OTTOMAN LOAN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the interest on the Ottoman Loan of 1855, guaranteed by Great Britain and France and costing British taxpayers £72,000 a year and French taxpayers nothing, approximately what proportion of bonds are held in this country and what proportion on the Continent; and why we continue to pay French bondholders interest which their own Government does not?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the proportion of these bonds held in this country and on the Continent respectively. With regard to the latter part of the question, payments are made in accordance with the guarantee of the interest on the loan entered into by His Majesty's Government with the French Government, jointly and severally, at the time of the loan's flotation. With regard to the French Government's obligations, I would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply returned to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the 23rd instant.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that the French Government are not paying any interest on that loan and the British taxpayers are paying the whole of this £72,000 a year, would it not be possible to differentiate between the recipients of the money paid, so that we might pay the British bondholders, and the French Government might pay or not pay, as they chose, the French bondholders?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Have representations been made to France on this matter?

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is it not a fact that as soon as this Government took possession of the island, the French said their duties lapsed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to put these various questions on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "DUNEDIN" AND "DIOMEDE."

Mr. JOHNSTON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the cruisers "Dunedin" and "Diomede" are still on the strength of the British Navy; and, if so, whether they have recently been sent to Samoa after consultation with the Admiralty?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): These two vessels are in the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy, which is under the orders of and maintained by His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. No question of consultation with the Admiralty arose, therefore, in connection with the sending of the vessels to Samoa.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Are the New Zealand Government entitled to conduct warlike operations without consulting the British Government?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The New Zealand Government are entitled to send these vessels to Samoa.

Mr. MALONE: Are not questions of war and peace decided in London?

CHINA STATION.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there have recently been any outbreaks of piracy in the China seas; and how many and what vessels of His Majesty's Fleet are now stationed in those waters?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There have been no reported cases of piracy on the high sea since the case of the "Irene" in October, which was widely reported in the Press. In the same period, however, there have been six cases of piracy in the Yangtse and West River, and in the Canton Delta, of which four were frustrated—one by the armed guard carried in the ship and the others by naval action.
I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of His Majesty's ships now serving on the China station.

Following are the particulars:


Cruisers
5


Aircraft Carrier
1


Destroyers (including Leaders)
18


Sloops
4


Gunboats (1 in reserve)
18


Despatch Vessel
1


Submarine Depot Ships
2


Submarines
12


Submarine Tender
1


Special Service Vessel
1


Armed Launches
3

PERSONNEL.

Mr. WELLOCK: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of persons under 18 years of age serving in the Navy in any capacity and the number between 18 and 21?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The following naval ratings
and Royal Marines (other than officers) were serving on 1st January, 1928:


Under 18 years of age
6,477


Between 18 and 21
14,282

Exact numbers for officers are not available, but the approximate numbers (including cadets) are:


Under 18 years of age
670


Between 18 and 21
670

WELFARE CONFERENCE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will extend representation on the welfare conference to all men in home service and not confine it to those serving for the time being at the home ports?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid the practical difficulties in extending the elections to include all ratings in home waters are insuperable. The ratings at the home ports are, however, representative of all branches and grades of the lower deck and are numerous enough to justify the view that an extension of the system as proposed, even if this were feasible, would not result in any material improvement.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the proportionate figures involved?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Not with out notice.

NEW CONSTRUCTION (CONTRACTS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what contracts have been placed for new constructions with private firms during the last three months, giving particulars including the names of the firms concerned; what orders have been placed with His Majesty's dockyards, giving particulars and stating which dockyard, during a similar period; and whether His Majesty's dockyards were given the opportunity of tendering for those contracts placed with private firms?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is:

4 submarines to Messrs. Vickers Armstrong.

1 submarine to Messrs. Cammell Laird.

1 flotilla leader to Messrs. Swan Hunter.

2 destroyers to Messrs. John Brown.

2 destroyers to Messrs. Hawthorn Leslie.

2 destroyers to Scott's Shipbuilding Company.

1 destroyer to Messrs. Vickers Armstrong.

The answer to the second part is:

1 cruiser to H.M. Dockyard, Devonport.

1 submarine to H.M. Dockyard, Chatham.

1 Pontoon for Crane Lighter to H.M. Dockyard, Chatham.

The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative except as regards the Pontoon and the boilers for the Devonport Cruiser.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the
Admiralty hold out any hope that this policy of sending work to private firms while simultaneously discharging dockyard employés will be abandoned; and has it not hitherto been the practice to give the dockyards an opportunity of tendering for work before it is placed with private firms?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We are giving the dockyards as large a share in our building programme as we possibly can.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: You are discharging men.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Obviously, however, the Government have to consider the interests of the whole country, as I have often told the hon. Member, and we cannot give any kind of guarantee as he suggests.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman also consider the interests of economy, and has it not been proved that the dockyards can build these ships more cheaply than private firms? Why, therefore, is the taxpayers' money being squandered?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the Government are really not responsible for the work of these other places, but that they are responsible for the men in His Majesty's dockyards?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not quite understand the Noble Lady's question, but, with regard to the interests of economy, we certainly are studying them, and that is one of the main reasons why we allocate ships in the way that we do.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the Government train them, pay them, and pension them, and does that not show that they are more responsible for the men in the dockyards than for the men in any private yard?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does my hon. and gallant Friend assert that it is less economical to build ships in His Majesty's dockyards than in private yards?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Obviously, I cannot lay down any general rule on the subject. All that I said was that we are studying the interests of economy in every possible way.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not be as objectionable for a man to be discharged from the Clyde as from a dockyard?

SUBMARINES.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the desirability of abolishing the submarine if all other countries agreed to adopt this course?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The attitude of His Majesty's Government on this subject remains the same as originally enunciated by Lord Lee of Fareham at the Washington Conference in 1921 when he urged the abolition of the submarine. This attitude was re-affirmed by me in Plenary Session at the recent Naval Conference at Geneva.

FIGHTING SERVICES (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has further considered the prohibitions on the political activities of naval officers on half-pay contained in the recent Fleet Order, with particular reference to the cases of those officers who are peers; and whether these prohibitions apply to such officers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answers to both parts of the question are in the affirmative.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in that case with
regard to the Admirals who have recently made speeches—or one Admiral in particular—in the House of Lords?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is another question on the Paper on that subject in the name of the hon. and gallant Member himself.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admirals of the Fleet when unemployed are considered as being on full pay or on half-pay; whether the recent Fleet Order regarding political activities applies to these officers; and, if so, to some extent?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Admirals of the Fleet when unemployed are officers on half-pay, but since there is no option of retirement in this rank and no full pay employment except in very special circumstances, it has been decided that except when employed they should be on the same footing, in this matter, as retired officers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would that mean, therefore, that an Admiral of the Fleet who is a Peer has certain privileges which an Admiral or a Vice-Admiral or a Rear-Admiral does not have; and does not the right hon. Gentleman see how objectionable that is?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He is in a different position from other Admirals, who might have a much better chance of going back into active service.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman make class distinctions among Flag Officers of the Fleet who are members of the House of Lords and those who are not?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not a class distinction at all, but a difference between an Admiral who has no probability of going back into active service and one who has.

Mr. BECKETT: If one of these gentlemen is selected for any office of profit under the Crown, does his half-pay still run?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is quite a different question.

Commander BELLAIRS: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any precedent for the Fleet Order of
the 26th August, 1927, or whether it is claimed to be covered by the Order in Council of 25th July, 1927?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure that I understand the meaning of the first part of the question. The Fleet Order and the Order in Council are complementary to each other, and taken together carry out the decision of His Majesty's Government that persons in the Naval, Military, Air or Civil Services of the Crown cannot, while on the active list of their respective Services, be permitted also to be actively engaged in the support of a political party.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Order in Council deals only with candidature for Parliament, and that both he and the Prime Minister stated that the Fleet Order is entirely based on the Order in Council?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. I cannot now give the actual words of my answer, but the Fleet Order was intended to carry out the Order in Council and to make clear the views of the Admiralty as to the activities of officers in this matter.

Commander BELLAIRS: As this question cannot be thrashed out by question and answer, I propose to call attention to it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-morrow.

Commander BELLAIRS: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the event of a half-pay officer taking part in a meeting or demonstration for political purposes, acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, in any way actively prosecuting a candidate's interest, issuing a political address, or standing for Parliament, what disciplinary machinery can be employed; and how can he be brought before a Court Martial?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is open to the Board to deal with a half-pay officer who disobeys the King's Regulations in any of the following ways, according to the deserts of the case:—

(a) He can be censured.
(b) He can be refused further employment on full pay with the consequence that he is placed before long on retired list.
396
(c) He can be placed on the retired list forthwith.
(d) He can be struck off the list altogether.

In reply to the second part of the question, a half-pay officer in the naval service cannot be brought before a Court, Martial.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the whole trouble due to the fact that an attempt has been made to bring the Navy into line with the Civil Service, where no half-pay exists? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that a mistake has been made, and will he not have it rectified?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No; I do not think a mistake has been made. The question is not merely one of the difference between a naval officer and an officer in the Civil Service; the question is one between naval officers and naval ratings. Naval ratings cannot be placed on half-pay, and, therefore, if the Order is to be fair to all ranks in the Navy, I think you have to include half-pay officers, because there are no half-pay ratings.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would the punishment be determined according to the political party of the officer concerned?

Commander BELLAIRS: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the legality of paragraph 4 of the Fleet Order of 26th August, 1927, which has been the subject of Cabinet inquiry?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I cannot enlighten my hon. and gallant Friend, as this is information which it is contrary to practice to give.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the fact that the opinion of the Law Officers has often been quoted in the past, especially in connection with courts-martial, would I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question as to what the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we ever admit questions asking for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. With great respect, may I refresh your memory, Sir,
as to what happened during what was called the Campbell Debate in the last Government, when the Law Officers were cross-examined in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am dealing only with questions, not with Debate.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Am I to understand that an officer is to be punished for an offence when he is not subject to naval discipline?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not follow as a supplementary question.

Sir R. HALL: I tried to ask it before.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be better put to-morrow night, when the whole question will be brought up by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

Mr. MAXTON: Arising out of the last answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, is your ruling in accordance with his answer, that it is incompetent to give any answers showing the relative increase or decrease in the Admiralty staffs?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that officers and men of the fighting services were allowed to exercise their full electoral rights by attending political meetings, asking questions of candidates, and, when in mufti, advocating their political opinions and the redress of such grievances as affected them and their families as citizens until the year 1924; whether, seeing that there has been a curtailment of these rights, he will state the reasons which have prompted the Government to take this course; and whether, seeing that the service towns are largely composed of service men and their families, he can grant to voters in the service full permission, when in mufti, to take the same part as other electors during a General Election?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In view of the large numbers of officers and men of the National Army awaiting demobilisation in 1918, special permission was granted at that election to officers and men of all three fighting services to advocate their political opinions provided that they were in mufti. This special permission has since been withdrawn, and I see no
reason for its renewal. The general rule in these matters for the three fighting services has now been formulated as a general prohibition of active participation in meetings held for party or political purposes, and the active prosecution of the interests of a Parliamentary candidate. This general regulation, which I see no ground to modify, is clearly incompatible with the practice of, namely, canvassing, whether in uniform or in mufti, or in any other way of openly advocating the interests of a particular candidate. But personnel of the fighting services even in uniform are not precluded by the rules from attending political meetings and asking questions.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he told me last week that no change whatever had been made in the practice, and, seeing that he now admits that a very fundamental change has been made, I ask why it is necessary to disfranchise the whole of the service towns, and whether he realises how much indignation is felt by service towns at this interference with the exercise of their democratic rights?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am no more infallible than the hon. Member; I have learned something from giving an answer in a hurry, and it is not to answer any supplemetary questions of this kind without notice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask whether that ruling covers and prevents Parliamentary candidates who are standing for Parliament circulating their photographs in naval uniform and asking for votes?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Prime Minister, may I give notice that next Tuesday I will raise this matter on the Adjournment?

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (FOREIGN ARTISTS).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of theatrical and film actors and actresses of foreign birth who were admitted to Great Britain for the purpose of taking up engagements for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): During the year ended 31st December, 1927, 120 permits were issued to enable aliens to come to this country for employment as theatrical and film actors and actresses. In addition, in five cases the Home Secretary was advised to agree to aliens taking up such employment after they had been given permission to land for other reasons. All permits were issued for short periods in the first instance, but in some cases where plays proved to be successful or where further engagements had been secured, I advised the Home Secretary to agree to short extensions of the original period.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has not been a great increase in the last few months in permits for people coming into this country to make films?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot answer that question offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will try and get comparative figures.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman got particulars of the number of permits that have been issued to theatrical agents of foreign origin?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Have we not Members of this House who are of foreign birth; if so, why not actors and actresses on the stage?

ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Mr. MAXTON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the rates of wages paid the artificial silk industry to unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled workers, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that I am not in possession of the information desired.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not very desirable that we should have information about the conditions of labour in industries that are receiving very special privileges from the nation?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman no figures with regard to increases or decreases of wages in these industries during the last three years?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think that we have with regard to the silk trade, but I will make inquiries with regard to it if the right hon. Gentleman wishes. I do not think that I have power to get the actual figures for wages, unless they are voluntarily given by the industries concerned.

Mr. MAXTON: I should like to know if any other Minister of the Crown has information as regards the conditions of labour in a safeguarded industry, or whether the industry having been safeguarded, the interests of the workers are left to chance?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question to the other Ministers from whom he wishes information. The other Ministers are quite obviously, for one, the Home Secretary with regard to the conditions of industry, many of which conditions come under the Home Office. I am unable to answer for my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Do not the Government regularly publish the changes in the rate of wages paid to the working classes in this country?

Sir A. STEE'L-MAITLAND: Of those wages of which we have information.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any Joint Industrial Council dealing with either artificial silk or silk?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can find that out and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the practice of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to have an officer attending meetings of these Joint Industrial Councils where they exist?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. MAXTON: I am in this difficulty, that I realise that the question I wish to put ought to be put to the Head of the Government, and I have some difficulty in knowing who is the Head of the Government at the present time.

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. MAXTON: Would you guide me then, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have some doubt as to who is leading them at the moment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour has stated that he will see if he can obtain the information for the hon. Member. If he does not succeed in getting it, I suggest that the hon. Member should apply to the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GATESHEAD.

Mr. BECKETT: 26 and 27.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of people registered as unemployed at the Gateshead Employment Exchange on 1st February, 1927 and 1928, respectively;
(2) the number of unemployed persons in receipt of unemployment benefit at the Gateshead Employment Exchange on 1st February, 1927 and 1928, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of persons on the registers of the Gateshead Employment Exchange at 30th January, 1928, was 8,746 as compared with 11,522 at 31st January, 1927. Statistics are not available regarding the number of these persons actually in receipt of unemployment benefit, but the number of persons with claims to benefit current was 6,660 at 30th January, 1928, and 9,819 at 31st January, 1927.

Mr. BECKETT: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by people with claims to benefit current, as distinct from people in receipt of benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Those who are making claims to benefit, some of whom are in receipt of benefit, and some of whom are in course of being adjudicated on. I can give further information on this matter to the hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with me. The figure which I have given is the nearest to that asked for.

DISTRESSED AREAS (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).

Mr. MALONE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour what industries, either in the South of England or around London, hold out a prospect of being able to absorb unemployed workers transferred from the more distressed areas?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on 22nd February, there are trades and districts in which the rate of employment is relatively very low, and experience shows that men coming from other districts succeed in obtaining work. But so much depends on the aptitude of the particular applicant and his suitability for a particular job that I do not think I ought to attempt to specify the industries to which applicants for employment should be directed.

Mr. MALONE: If the Minister of Labour cannot specify the industries, how can men who are unemployed in the north know where to come to?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The reason, as regards London, is that it is not so much a question of industries as of jobs. For example, there is a great turnover of work in London, and opportunities for jobs are continually growing. It is in that way that a considerable number of Welsh miners have obtained work. It is not possible, it is not right or suitable, that people should flock in in large numbers because they hear of a particular job, for they might be disappointed. But with the quick turnover in London and the- comparatively good state of trade here, there is an opportunity for sharing out a good amount of employment with people like miners from South Wales who come in from the more distressed areas.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that workmen are being grossly misled over these jobs?

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that the Welsh miner comes to London and prevents a Londoner getting a job that another Londoner has vacated?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not necessarily.

Mr. MAXTON: What else can it mean?

Mr. KELLY: In what type of employment have the bulk of these Welsh miners been placed; have any of them been placed in the artificial silk trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member, when he asks for details of that kind, will give me notice. So far as I am aware, none of the Welsh
miners have been placed in artificial silk works, in what I call the ordinary weaving or textile trades. The greater number, so far as I know, are in constructional work of one kind or another.

Mr. WILFRID PALING: In view of the prospects in London and the south, has the new Committee which is being set up succeeded in transferring any men from the north to the south where the work is supposed to exist?

Mr. PARKINSON: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that miners are being sent from Lancashire Employment Exchanges, principally Wigan, to Manton collieries, Nottingham, under the promise of work, good wages, and regular employment; that the statements made to the men are not correct, and that many men from Wigan have had to apply to the Worksop Board of Guardians for relief; and whether he will institute inquiries into these cases, with a view to preventing a continuance of such transfers to districts where work is not available, and also to safeguard the unemployment benefits of the men who have been misled by these offers, and of those whose benefits have been stopped because they refused to go to Manton?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the transfer of miners from Wigan to pits at Manton under the ownership of a Wigan company. The men were interviewed by representatives of the colliery company, and I have no evidence that the statements made to the men at the interviews were not correct, nor does my information support the hon. Member's statement that many have since applied to the Worksop Guardians for relief. Further transfers to Manton have been temporarily suspended owing to short time working. The question whether benefit, can be paid to men who refuse offers of work is decided not by me, but by the independent statutory authorities appointed for that purpose.

Mr. PARKINSON: Is the Minister of Labour aware that 90 people were asked for and that a considerably greater number—over 100—have been sent than were required; and that the chairman of the Worksop Board of Guardians has made a public statement that something
like 120 people have applied to that board of guardians for relief; and that when these people returned to Wigan they had to apply to the board of guardians?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly inquire further into any point that needs inquiry, and, if the hon. Member will give me any information, I shall be glad to place it with the other points for inquiry.

Mr. PARKINSON: I can give the right hon. Gentleman newspaper reports.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman is making his inquiries, will he ascertain whether this colliery has employed all its men who were stopped in 1926, or whether it is not a, fact that many of the men who have hitherto worked at that colliery are still unemployed, and that the whole colliery has been on short time for a very long period indeed?

MINERS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were registered as unemployed at the Doncaster and Mexborough Labour Exchanges on the 7th January, 1928, and on the last date for which figures are available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The numbers of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry who were recorded as unemployed in the areas of the Doncaster and Mexborough Employment Exchanges at 19th December, 1927, and 23rd January, 1928, were 981 and 1,431 respectively, including 503 at the earlier date and 857 at the later date who were temporarily stopped from the service of their employers.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 32 and 33.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many miners were registered as unemployed in Yorkshire in the first week in January, 1928, and on the last date for which figures are available;
(2) how many mine workers were employed in Yorkshire on 1st January, 1927; how many were registered as unemployed; and similar figures for 22nd February, 1928?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Seeing that the number of mine workers thrown out of work has been constantly increasing during the past few weeks, will the Minister advise the Transference Board not to send more miners to an area already seriously affected by unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension, perhaps he would read the answer and then put down his supplementary question as another question, because he will find from the answer that the number of wage-earners in the colliery areas in Yorkshire has gone up and that the number of unemployed in Yorkshire from that date has gone down.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not aware that in the reply which he read out it was stated that the number of miners unemployed has increased by about 600 in a period of a month, and is he not aware that that applies to the whole county and not merely to one district?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the Minister observed the news in this morning's papers of a case where miners are unemployed because they refused to allow the safety men to attend to the pit, and it is flooded out?

Following is the answer:

I am informed by the Secretary for Mines that according to returns received by him the number of wage earners on colliery books in Yorkshire for the week ended 1st January, 1927, was 173,448, as compared with 183,716 for the week ended 18th February, 1928. The number of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal mining industry recorded as unemployed in Yorkshire was 20,318 at 24th January, 1927, as compared with 14,757 at 23rd January, 1928, the latest date for which figures are available. The number of persons temporarily stopped included in these figures were 13,331 and 6,942, respectively. Corresponding figures are not available for the first week in January of either year.

WREXHAM AREA.

Mr. C. P. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to set up a training centre for unemployed persons in the Wrexham area?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. I do not see my way at present to provide any more training centres beyond those in existence or in contemplation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons were refused benefit at the Employment Exchange at Wrexham in January, 1928, and the principal reasons for the disallowances?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the four weeks ended 13th February, 1928, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the Wrexham Local Committee was 138, of which eight were recommended for disallowance. In six cases it was held that the applicants were not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, in one case the applicant had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment in the last two years, and the remaining case was that of a single person residing with relatives to whom he could look for support. Statistics regarding the decisions on applications for standard benefit are not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Industrial Transference Board has had its attention called to the condition of unemployed miners in the Wrexham area; and, if so, what steps are contemplated to provide work for these men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Industrial Transference Board has constantly before it the situation in all mining areas, and, while unemployment amongst miners in the Wrexham district is fortunately not so great as that in other mining centres in Wales, the Board will have this district in mind in its efforts to facilitate the transfer of surplus mining labour.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this district the Transference Board has actually transferred anybody and found work for them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Transference Board, whose operations it will be open to the hon. Member or others to raise in the Debate later, is not, as he imagines, a Board that has large executive powers of its own. It works very largely through the other executive departments, in order to stimulate their
efforts to provide openings, and so make the number of transfers greater than it would otherwise be.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the powers of the Transference Board are so small that it can practically do nothing?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.

BRICKLAYERS AND LABOURERS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers and bricklayers' labourers were unemployed on 1st February, 1928 and on 1st February in each of the previous four years?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The number of insured bricklayers classified as belonging to the building trade recorded as unemployed in Great Britain on the dates nearest to 1st February for which figures are available were as follow:


28th January, 1924
1,281


26th January, 1925
1,071


26th January, 1926
2,953


24th January, 1927
4,807


23th January, 1928
9,027

The figure for 23rd January, 1928, excludes persons aged 65 years and over, who are no longer insured under the unemployment insurance scheme. Separate figures are not available in respect of bricklayers' labourers. These are included in the statistics for labourers to all classes of skilled workers in the industry.

UMPIRE AND REFEREES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. BATEY: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the increase in the cost of the office of umpire from £4,730 in 1927 to £9,475 in 1928; and also the courts of referees from £26,450 in 1927 to £210,000 in 1928; and how much is to be paid to the umpire and to the referees and chairman of the referees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Owing to the abolition of the Minister's discretion with regard to extended benefit by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, a
great number of claims which have hitherto been dealt with by the local employment committees will be referred to the courts of referees and the umpire, with a consequent increase in the cost attributable to the latter. The salary of the umpire at present is £1,650 per annum; chairmen of courts of referees receive 2½ guineas per sitting, together with travelling and subsistence allowances; other members of courts of referees receive travelling and subsistence allowances and compensation for lost time.

Mr. BATEY: Does not the Minister consider that it would have been better to utilise some of this money in relieving unemployed workmen rather than in giving it to these well-paid officials?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps I am to understand from that that the hon. Member is in favour of the Minister retaining his discretion in the matter, and adjudicating on benefit?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not meant that it would have been better to retain local committees rather than have courts of referees?

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister aware that my opinion is—

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to have the hon. Member's opinion on a more suitable occasion.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. BATEY: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the total estimated cost of administration and the amount to be paid in benefits to unemployed workmen out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the year 1928?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The estimated cost of administration of the Unemployment Fund in the year ending 31st March, 1929, is £4,930,000. The amount of unemployment benefit to be paid will, of course, depend upon the volume of unemployment; for the calendar year 1927 it was £36,750,000.

SAFEGUARDED INDUSTRIES.

Captain CAZALET: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the total number of insured workers engaged in those industries to which the
Safeguarding of Industries Act is now applied in the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission,

Industry.
Estimated number of Insured Workpeople at


July, 1923.
July, 1924.
July, 1925.
July, 1926.
July, 1927.


Construction and repair of Motor Vehicles, Cycles and Aircraft,
190,430
201,960
212,590
221,810
230,970


Silk (including Artificial Silk)
37,300
41,490
46,550
50,820
55,040


Lace
21,220
20,350
19,500
18,880
18,170


Musical Instruments
19,520
19,890
21,630
24,380
24,700

COURT OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet appointed the representatives on the court of referees of the workpeople and employers in Glasgow; if not, when is it his intention to do so; and what bodies he has consulted, or proposes consulting, on the subject?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The appointment of additional members of the panel is proceeding. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I cannot add to what I told the hon. Member on 15th February.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman told me nothing on that date. With all due respect, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what body he has consulted. The reason why I put down a question is because on that date he did not tell me what body he was consulting.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member could not have been listening on that date, otherwise he would have heard that I replied to him that there would be consultation with the local employment committee. That is the body which I am consulting, and it contains representatives of workmen and employers and others.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that large numbers of the working-class are not represented on this committee, and in view of the fact that the Minister is starting off under a new Act, will he take steps to see that every representative body of working-class opinion is consulted?

circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement regarding the industries affected by import duties for which separate figures are available.

Following is the statement:

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have taken every pains to see that the consultation is sufficient to be fair to everyone, in my opinion.

INSURANCE ACTS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet come to any decision as to publishing a small booklet explaining the provisions of the new Insurance Act; and, if such decision is in favour of doing so, when it will be issued?

Mr. BLUNDELL: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to issue a summary of the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A summary of the Unemployment Insurance Acts has been prepared and is being issued as a Command Paper. Copies will, I understand, be available to-day at the Vote Office.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Department making a charge for this booklet, or are they distributing it free to those who are occupying posts in the administration of the new Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall have to consider that point.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman place this booklet at the disposal of the people through the Employment Exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have just said that I will consider that point.

SEA SCHOOLS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of sea schools now operating and their location; the number of boys who have received training in these schools and entered the merchant service and the Navy, respectively; the number who are at present receiving training for the merchant service; and the number who have been or are about to be transferred to the naval training establishments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have been asked to reply.

Training Ships and Schools for Merchant Service Rating.


Name
Location.
Sent to Sea in 1927.
Number in Training, January,1928.


M.M
R.N.


"Arethusa"
Greenhithe
…
43
92
165


"Warspite"
Greenhithe
…
76
65
217


"Exmouth"
Grays
…
132
15
536


"Indefatigable"
Liverpool
…
46*
1*
150


"Mars"
Dundee
…
18
2
160


"Cornwall"
Denton, near Gravesend
…
41
—
105


Wellesley Nautical School
Blyth
…
25
5
159


Lancashire and National Sea Training Homes.
Wallasey, Cheshire
…
70
21
200


Watts Naval Training School
Elmbam, Norfolk
…
7
30
278


Incorporated National Nautical School.
Portishead, Somerset
…
17
1
136


Nautical Training School
Heswall, Cheshire
…
41
—
197


Sea School and T.S."Triton"
Gravesend
…
752
—
214


Prince of Wales Sea Training Hostel.
London, E
…
65
—
48





1,333
232
2,565


*In year ended 31st March, 1927.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Mr. BATEY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid to the International Labour Office, League of Nations; the cost of deputations to meetings of that body; and why the money is not paid by the Treasury, but comes out of the Unemployment Fund?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Great Britain's contribution to the International Labour Office is estimated for 1928–9 at £34,000, and the estimate for travelling and incidental expenses is £2,000. These sums are borne by the Exchequer, and no part of them is charged to the Unemployment Fund.

The answer takes the form of a tabular statement giving particulars of the sea training schools in this country, other than those which only take boys intending to be officers, together with the numbers of boys sent to sea from these schools in 1927 and of boys in training in January, 1928. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate this in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no information as to the number of boys who have been or are about to be transferred to naval training establishments.

Following is the statement:

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to make the Ministry of Pensions a subordinate Department of the Ministry of Health at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILMS.

CENSORSHIP (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. FENBY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister how often and on what occasions the appropriate Minister has been approached by the British Board of Film
Censors for advice about any particular film before they came to a decision to licence it?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE of the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Vivian Henderson): The Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The Secretary of State is informed that the Board of Film Censors has never approached any of His Majesty's Ministers directly, but from time to time it has consulted various Government Departments on questions arising in connection with particular films on which the Board desired information before arriving at a decision. These questions have been mainly technical, connected with naval and military incidents, but sometimes with public policy either at home or abroad.

"DAWN."

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in connection with the censorship of the British film "Dawn"; and whether, in view of the public interest in this matter and of the importance of the principles involved, he will give the House an opportunity to discuss the question one day or, alternatively, one evening?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, in view of the state of public business, I cannot give special time for discussion. My hon. Friend might find an opportunity to raise this matter on a Private Members' Motion day, or on the Adjournment any evening.

Mr. DAY: Were the Government acquainted with all the facts with regard to the publication of the film "Dawn" before action was taken by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Prime Minister tell me on which Civil Service Vote this matter can be raised?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure that it is possible to raise it on a Vote, but I will look into that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Stationery Department has on its payroll a gentleman who is described as "the Official Adviser of the Government on film matters," and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to raise the matter on that Vote?

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Mr. LOOKER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the policy of the Government as to extending or otherwise the principle of safeguarding industries of this country affected by the importation of foreign manufactured goods; and whether the Government proposes to simplify the present procedure governing applications for a safeguarding duty to be imposed?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 20th February to the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey), a copy of which I am sending him.

RUBBER EXPORT RESTRICTION SCHEME.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he can inform the House of the personnel of the committee which is examining or is about to examine the rubber export restriction scheme?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 15th February in reply to questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill) and the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison).

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Will the Prime Minister say whether there is any hope in the near future of knowing the personnel of this committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not know.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Has the committee been constituted?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe the committee is working hard at the present time.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Who are they?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will it be an instruction to the committee, seeing that we have consulted Germany about films, that we do not consult the Americans about rubber?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TRADE BOARDS ACT (INSPECTION).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of inspectors situated in Scotland and who deal with the trade boards; if any inspector is situated in Glasgow and, if so, where is the office; and, if not, can he state why none is situated in this centre?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are six trade board inspectors in Scotland. It is found that these inspectors can be more efficiently employed by utilising them wherever they are required, rather than by allocating them to particular districts. For this reason there is no separate office at Glasgow or elsewhere, other than the headquarters office at 44, Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that Glasgow is the largest industrial centre in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the setting up of an office where advice can be sought, and information given to the people who wish to have it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Complaints as regards any breach can either be reported to the Edinburgh office or to any Employment Exchange.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is not always complaints, but constantly working people are asking for advice, and would like help on certain matters. At present they have no definite place to which to go in a big industrial centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up an advisory office?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider it from that point of view, which I had not in mind, and I will see whether any change is advisable after examining that point of view.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that new offices are about to be built in Glasgow will the right hon. Gentleman
consider setting apart at least one day a week on which advice can be given?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already told the hon. Member that he has put forward an aspect of the matter with which I was not familiar. I will again look into the subject from that point of view.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

Mr. Mac KENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that the Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Scotland was published in the Recess, he will now say what steps, are proposed to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners regarding the monuments in the Outer Hebrides, Skye, and the small isles?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The full Report, with detailed inventory, and illustrations, will not be ready for some weeks. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland will no doubt, in making recommendations to the Commissioners of Works, give due weight to the Report. If there is any specific unscheduled monument which, in the opinion of the hon. Member, is in immediate danger, perhaps he will communicate with me.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In dealing with the question of ancient monuments, will my hon. Friend consider some of the boats used in the transport service?

AIRSHIPS.

Mr. DAY: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give particulars as to the number of giant steel masts which have been or are being erected along the route which will be taken by the new airship, R 101, on her flight to India; the approximate cost of each mast; and by whom the cost will be borne?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Two mooring masts, one at Cardington and one at Ismailia, have been erected, and another mast is projected at Karachi. The combined
cost of the two first-named masts is approximately £100,000, and falls on the Imperial Exchequer. It is proposed that the cost of the mast at Karachi, which will be in the neighbourhood of £50,000, should be borne by India, and the Legislative Assembly has the matter under consideration at the present time.

Mr. ROSE: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the present stage to which the construction of R. 101 has now been brought; and whether the fixed weights stipulation is likely to be exceeded or not?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, I would suggest that the hon. Member should await my statement on the forthcoming Air Estimates, when I propose to give information in regard to the progress made in the construction of both the airships. As regards the last part, there is no fixed weights stipulation in the case of the R 101, and I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on this subject on the 16th February.

Mr. ROSE: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if the clause in the 1924 contract for the construction of airship R.100, which stipulates that the fixed weights are not to exceed 90 tons, is being strictly adhered to or has it been modified; and, if so, to what extent and for what reason?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is that the contract stipulation that the fixed weights of R.100 are not to exceed 90 tons has not been modified; the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

EXCAVATIONS, WESTMINSTER.

Mr. AMMON: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the recently-discovered subway between Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament can be cleared and restored for use as a means of crossing a dangerous roadway by Members of Parliament?

Sir V. HENDERSON: My Noble Friend regrets that he is unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, as no subway has been discovered. Recent
excavations have disclosed what is probably the foundation of Tudor buildings which formerly occupied the site.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is there any possibility of closing that part of the present subway leading to the Underground Station which is specially dangerous to Members of Parliament?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not think that that arises on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increasing competition among municipal authorities for water-supply sources, he will consider making a Government allotment of water-bearing areas in order to prevent small authorities from being squeezed out by large wealthy cities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The interests of small authorities are carefully watched over by my Department when examining proposals for water supplies, and, where necessary, reports are made to Parliament. A general survey and allotment of water-bearing areas would entail considerable expense and delay, and my right hon. Friend prefers the system which has been adopted of appointing regional water committees, who estimate local needs and then proceed to formulate definite proposals for supplying them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that many large authorities are able to collect water over very large areas, taking the water from smaller districts which have only sufficient to supply themselves, and which, in the end, can only obtain water from the larger authorities at a greater cost?

Sir K. WOOD: This question suggests the adoption of a particular plan, and I have replied that my right hon. Friend considers that the appointment of Regional Water Committees is the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Regional Water Committees have been in operation, and does he not think that his Department
should take some steps to ensure that the smaller districts have a supply of water?

PETROL (LEAD TETRAETHYL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the steps, if any, he proposes to take to prevent injury to workmen, persons employed in garages, and the general public from ill-effects from the use of petrol diluted with lead tetraethyl; if he is aware that lead tetraethyl is a poisonous substance easily absorbed by the blood through the skin and that its use in garages has been proved to be dangerous; and whether, until his Department has examined into this matter, he will consider issuing special warnings to garages and to the local authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: Lead tetraethyl is a poisonous substance, and those who make or sell preparations of petrol which contain it should take or advise precautions designed to avoid danger from handling or using these products. There is at present no definite evidence of injurious results following the use of ethyl spirit. The desirability of further inquiries or research into the nature of any danger to the public from its use is being considered in conjunction with the Medical Research Council, but, pending such inquiry, it is not proposed to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a letter which appeared in the "Times" recently from the holder of one of the Chairs of Chemistry at Cambridge, in which he said that even the flooding of a carburettor and the getting of this petrol on the skin may bring about very serious poisoning; and, in view of this, will he not issue a warning interim to the report on the investigations?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Switzerland prohibited the use of lead tetraethyl by an Ordinance in 1925?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the very extensive and expensive investigation
which is now being carried out by a private company in the public interest?

Sir K. WOOD: I think it would be of advantage, in the first instance at any rate, to leave the matter to the Medical Research Council.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. HADYN JONES: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Pugh Evans, Bridge Cottage, Barmouth, an insured widow of 65, who was in receipt of a war pension of 20s. in respect of her only son, and who has now had her pension reduced by 10s. owing to the receipt of the old age pension; and whether any steps are contemplated to remedy this hardship?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I have been asked to reply to this question. The war pension in this case was one of the class—referred to in Section 24 (1) of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925—which is calculated with reference to the necessities of the pensioner. As such, an adjustment had to be made of the amount of the war pension when a pension under the Act was awarded to the pensioner, who nevertheless continues to receive the same amount as before in the aggregate from the two sources.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister make representations to the Minister of Health that the Contributory Pensions Act should be amended, in order that these widows may not be robbed of their 10s.?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir; they are not being robbed in any way. They are receiving as much as before.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

WAGES.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 60.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, upon what basis the rates of wages are fixed for workmen employed on forestry work; and whether the rates of payment are regulated by the standard of each district.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I have been asked to reply. The rates of wages paid by the Forestry Commissioners to workmen employed on forestry work vary with the local agricultural wage, and are comparable therewith. A considerable amount of work is done at piece rates, which enable the men to increase their earnings.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman represent to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) that a number of miners are now being engaged on this work, and that their cost of living is not comparable with agricultural rates?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will bring his communication before the Commissioners.

REPLANTING, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 61.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the acreage in Staffordshire which was replanted in 1927, and the number of acres estimated for 1928?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I have been asked to reply. The Forestry Commissioners planted 485 acres in Stafford-shire last season. The programme for the current season is 207 acres.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether, for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity of associating itself with the action taken in consequence of the Report, and of asking for an inquiry into the issues raised owing to the re-opening of the Zinoviev affair and the incomplete position in which it has been left by the Report, an early time will be afforded for a, discussion on the Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate certain statements affecting civil servants.

The PRIME MINISTER: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not an easy part of the Session in which to find time, but I will undertake to arrange at least a half-day during this part of the Session.

Mr. Mac DONALD: I suppose the arrangement will be made through the usual channels?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

GUARDIANS' ELECTIONS (PAUPER VOTES).

Mr. G. HARVEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the misuse of pauper votes at guardians' elections, and move a Resolution.

ELECTORAL REFORM.

Mr. WIGGINS: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the need for electoral reform, and move a Resolution.

CROWN FORCES (MEAT SUPPLY).

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the desirability of a supply of British meat to the Forces of the Crown, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL INCOME (DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. STAMFORD: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the unequal distribution of the national income, and move a Resolution.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the employment of disabled ex-service men compulsory.
This is the same Measure, with few modifications, as that first introduced in May, 1924, by our late colleague, the then hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou), and which I brought before the
House last April. On each of those two occasions the House gave a Second Reading without a Division, which shows at least that the principle embodied in the Bill has the support of all parties, but it failed to reach the Statute Book through pressure of other business. As time goes on, and we get further away from the Great War, there is a natural tendency to forget those who were disabled in fighting for their country, but the need for finding work for these men is, if anything, more urgent. There are patriotic employers all over the country who have responded to the call and are employing the disabled, but there are, unfortunately, many firms and local authorities who are not bearing their share of the burden, and it is those who have so far neglected a common duty who will be "roped in" under the Bill. If the burden was shared equally among all employers it would be but a very small quota that each firm or local authority would have to employ. It has been said there is a danger that if this Bill becomes law it will nullify the work of the King's Roll Committee, but I can assure the House there is no ground for fear in this respect.
This Bill will supplement the excellent work which the King's Roll Committee has accomplished. It will merely bring pressure to bear on those who have hitherto failed in their duty, while it will not affect adversely the patriotic employer. In the Division I represent there are a large number of the disabled who are still unemployed. I know them and meet them regularly and do what I can for them, knowing their conditions, and while it may be said that they are receiving pensions for their disabilities, and that the country shows its gratitude to the ex-service men who need help in no uncertain manner by the wonderful response on Poppy Day, it must be remembered that, after all, what these men want is occupation, which is the only thing that brings happiness and contentment, for time hangs heavily on those who have nothing to do. The recent loss the country has sustained by the untimely death of the honoured president of the British Legion, Earl Haig, is an added argument in favour of the Bill, for it is well known that during the last eight years of his life
he was continually advocating the cause of the ex-service men who fought under him and constantly appealing to employers to find work for them. The House could not pay a more fitting tribute to his memory than by giving this Bill their unanimous support.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Smedley Crooke, Lieut.-Colonel AclandTroyte, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Dixey, Colonel England, Mr. Womersley, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, and Lieut.-Colonel Gadie.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED Ex-SERVICE MEN BILL,

"to make the employment of disabled ex-service men compulsory," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Cooper Rawson; and bad appointed in substitution: Sir Henry Cautley.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE.

4.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move,
That this House, realising that the acute and continuing depression in the industry of agriculture is causing serious hardship to the whole agricultural community, urges strongly upon the Government the necessity of providing without delay all practical measures for relieving the heavy burdens now weighing upon the industry.
I took the opportunity during the Debate on the Gracious Speech from the Throne to bring forward the question of agriculture, but I make no apology for raising the question again, because it is one which I think the whole House will agree is of the very greatest importance not only to the agricultural community but to the whole country. Many industries at present are in a condition of great depression, but I feel that agriculture deserves very special consideration, because it is an industry on which the prosperity of the whole country very much depends, and this is particularly so in a constituency such as mine, where all the towns are very largely dependent on the prosperity of the industry and the industry is very dependent on the prosperity of the towns. No one denies that agriculture at present is going through very difficult times. On all sides we see farms under-cultivated or going out of cultivation, farmers losing money, workmen receiving low wages, and employment decreasing, and we see the landowner finding it very difficult to carry on. Depression varies with the different parts of the industry and in different parts of the country, but it spreads over every branch of the industry. In former times when there has been depression in agriculture it has usually been found that some branch of the industry is paying, but at present I do not think there is any branch of the industry at all in which profits are being made. The problem which I hope we shall consider to-day is how it may be made to pay, and I think the line we ought to pursue is to see how we can reduce the burdens that are at present weighing on the industry. We have to remember that agriculture is divided into a great number of branches, and what
helps one branch does not help another. Unfortunately agriculturists are rather apt to think only of the branch which affects themselves. If they are to find any solution of their difficulties it is necessary that, to whatever branch they may belong, they should all stand together, try to help each other, and try to understand each other's difficulties.
4.0 p.m.
It is for this reason that I have turned to one of the far Eastern counties, where, I am afraid, conditions are even worse than in my own county, to get a seconder for this Motion—the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise). It is difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to find any single remedy to put the industry back into that state of prosperity which we all wish to see. There are, of course, two remedies which would go a very long way towards that, but both are impossible, and the country would not stand them. I refer, of couse, to Subsidy and Protection. A great many of my farmers are asking for Protection, but that is not only contrary to pledges of the Government at the last Election, but also, I am afraid, it is doubtful whether the majority of persons would be in favour of it. We must, therefore, put these two things, Subsidy and Protection, out of consideration, because they are certainly not at the present time within the realm of practical politics.
I regret that the two Opposition parties have thought it necessary to put down Amendments to my Motoin, because I did hope that we might be able to combine to try to find some solution, or some way of helping the industry, without having to go into some abstract theory as to tenure of land. I hope the House will not allow itself to be led away from its object by any red-herring such as nationalisation or land tenure, but will consider what we really can do genuinely to help the industry of agriculture. Neither the Socialist policy of nationalisation nor the Liberal policy of semi-nationalisation is really going to do anything to help the industry out of the condition in which it now is. These two policies have been almost universally condemned by everyone who has any practical knowledge of the industry. The two policies are very nearly allied, and are not really invented with the object of helping and benefiting the industry of
agriculture. Their primary object is to eliminate the landholder, and their secondary object is to try to get a few votes from the towns, where people are more easily deceived about agriculture than they are in the country. They would not benefit agriculture in any way, and that is the general opinion of agriculturists throughout the country. The people who support these two policies seem to have a sort, of pathetic faith in committees, surveys, inquiries and things of that sort. They seem to think that by requiring the farmer to spend his days and nights in filling up returns, they are helping him to make farming pay. What the farmer wants is less interference, and not more interference, from Government and county officials. Those who think that surveys and inquiries are going to help, do not seem to realise that the duty of the farmer is to produce food for the nation, and not to produce work for officials.
I had a meeting with my farmers last week, and they put to me certain suggestions about which, I hope, the Minister of Agriculture may be able, later on, to tell us what he thinks, or, if he cannot tell us on the present occasion, perhaps he will tell us on some future occasion. I promised my farmers I would put these suggestions forward. Upon the first three I myself am not prepared to give any opinion at the present moment. The first of their suggestions was that all millers should be compelled by law to use a certain proportion of English wheat. Their second suggestion was that wheat should be allowed to come into this country free, but that flour should either be prohibited or taxed. That is, of course, a, thing which cannot be done at the present time, because it is not in agreement, with the pledges given at the Election, and it requires, I think, very careful consideration indeed, because, if it were put into force the risk might possibly be run of raising the price of bread or the price of flour, and that, as everyone knows, we do not wish to do, and cannot do. Their third suggestion was a tax on the export of offals. It is freely stated, I do not know with how much truth, that offals are being sold to foreigners at a cheaper rate than to the British farmers. The Minister will be able to tell us if that be so, and, if so, it certainly ought to be stopped, and I hope in that case he will take steps to
stop it. Of course, everyone realises the importance of cheap offals to the farmers of this country. These are matters which, as I say, require consideration, and cannot be put into force immediately.
When I spoke on this subject on the Address in Reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, I ventured to put forward certain suggestions which would help the industry in general, and which, I hope, the Minister will be able to put into force without delay. Some of them affect other Ministers, perhaps, more than they do him. The first and most important suggestion I made was that agricultural land and buildings should be relieved of all rates. That is a measure of justice which ought to be carried out and, I hope, will be carried out this year. In addition to that, I suggested, although I do not think it can be done this year, that the original Exchequer grant towards the relief of rates, which is supposed to be 50 per cent., but is really somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 or 20 per cent., should be raised to a genuine 50 per cent. Then I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the question of a tax on malting barley. I know he has decided that this tax is not practical, but a great many farmers think that if we could give it a little further consideration, it might be possible for this tax to be put on, and if, in addition to putting on this tax, the right hon. Gentleman could at the, same time persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the taxation on whisky and beer, it would without doubt be of very great help to farmers who grow barley, and farmers who grow barley are at the present time in very considerable difficulties.
While I am on the subject of liquid refreshment, I should like to mention the question of cider. I would ask the Minister to inquire into the question of what happens to cider imported into this country. If he finds that imported cider and cider from imported apples are sold in the name of one of our ciderproducing counties, I think he ought to take steps to prevent it. I am afraid this does not come under the Merchandise Marks Acts at the present time, but those Acts ought to be extended so as to include this, and a great many more of the articles produced by farmers and agriculturists generally should be marked, so that the consumer would
know whether he was buying a foreign or an English article. I am very glad to notice that we have, at any rate, got hold of one convert to this in the Liberal party, because the hon. Baronet the Member for Anglesea (Sir R. Thomas) wanted eggs brought under the Merchandise Marks Act. I do not know whether this shows yet another split in the Liberal party or not.
Another thing I would ask the Minister to do is to take up a more determined attitude when dealing with his colleagues in the Cabinet. I think he ought to insist upon the forces of the Crown being, as far as possible, supplied with English-grown produce, and certainly on at least two days a week, and more if possible, with British meat—meat grown in these islands. I do not believe that the cost would be as high as the right hon. Gentleman has stated in answer to a question, because I am sure that there is a great deal less waste in British meat than in frozen meat, and, therefore, the cost would not be so high as is generally thought. Then I would like him to urge upon the Minister of Transport to give us larger grants from the Road Fund for the upkeep of rural roads. We all know that the cost of roads all over the country has increased tremendously, and that the burden of the rates for the upkeep of these roads lies very heavily, not only upon farmers but upon everybody who lives in rural districts. I think we ought to have a larger share of the Road Fund towards the upkeep of rural roads, and that less ought to be spent on new roads, which are not so necessary as the upkeep of the present roads.
I want particularly to ask the Minister of Agriculture to stand up to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and to prevent him from putting any further burden on the agricultural industry. Such Orders as the Milk and Dairies Order and that prohibiting the use of preservatives in cream may be very excellent in themselves, but this is not the time to put extra burdens on agriculture, and there is no doubt that these Orders do put extra burdens on the industry. I warned the Minister of Health on several occasions that the Order prohibiting the use of preservatives in cream would cause a great deal of damage to the cream trade. I hear already that they
are finding difficulty in Cornwall and elsewhere, and only last Saturday I received a letter from a creamery in my constituency stating that some of the cream even now is reaching its destination in a sour condition. That cream is produced under the best conditions. The weather at present is fairly favourable for cream to travel, and if at this time of the year cream is arriving unsound, it is certain that things will be very much worse when the hot weather comes.
If nothing can be done to alter or modify this Order in some way, the cream trade will suffer very heavily, and that trade is a very important part of the agricultural industry in Devonshire. Thousands of pounds of cream are sold every week, large quantities being for tourists and the Midlands and North, and if this trade be ruined, as it may be by this Order, then agriculture in Devonshire will get in as bad a way as agriculture in the Eastern Counties. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to persuade the Minister of Health to make some alteration in this Order. If when the Minister of Health speaks at Exeter on Friday he is able to announce that he is prepared to make some modification of the Order prohibiting the use of preservatives in cream, and, at the same time, he is able to announce that he has changed his mind about imported skimmed milk, imported condensed skimmed milk, and will prevent this thoroughly useless article from being brought into the country, the announcement will be very welcome to everybody concerned in my part of the world.
I know the Minister will do all that he can to help research, co-operation, improved marketing, and to improve drainage. Perhaps he may be able to tell us presently what he is doing in regard to these subjects. I do not propose to talk about them, because there are many other Members who want to speak on this subject. If the Government will carry out the suggestions which I have made, I think they will find they will prove a great help to agriculture. We know that the Government have done a great deal to help the industry, but a great deal more needs to be done unless agriculture is to get into a worse condition than that in which it is now. If the Government carry out those suggestions—and they are
practical suggestions—I think they will find they are really doing something to help the industry. Although I do not for a minute say they will cure all our ills, yet they will go a very long way towards curing them; and, although some of us may go on grumbling and some people may have to grumble against the Government, I feel we shall not find that the agriculturists are ungrateful.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has spoken largely on the difficulties surrounding his own part of the world, the West country, where the soil is capable of producing large supplies of both meat and milk. I, on the other hand, come from the Eastern counties, where we have in the past prided ourselves on being capable of producing very large and very fine qualities of the very best cereals. I was interested to hear my hon. and gallant Friend stress the point, that in these times of agricultural depression both sides of the industry, those producing cereals and those producing meat and milk, should not look too closely to their own side of the question, but should pool their ideas and try to pull the whole industry through as one. Surely, it is a tragedy that in my district, where we have a soil which is capable of producing as good and as heavy crops as the soil in any other part of the world and where also we have at our very door the greatest market in the world, London and Greater London with their teeming millions of population, we should be compelled under present conditions to produce these crops at a loss. There is a further tragedy. We are being driven from our rightful task of producing cereals into competition with those farmers so ably represented by my hon. and gallant Friend by being compelled largely to turn to other forms of production, namely, meat and milk. What is the result of that? Whereas until recent years the grass farmer has not suffered so severely as the cereal farmer, to-day his position is very nearly as bad, because he is now suffering from a new form of competition in addition to the foreign competition which he has had to meet so long and which has been so severe. He now has to meet competition from his brother farmer. He is going into his line of business.
There has been a school of thought which for many years past has said this to the arable farmer: "If your grain crops do not pay to grow, grow meat or milk. Put your land down to grass." In my view, that has always been extraordinarily bad advice. It has added to the grass farmer's difficulties by giving him a new competitor while it has not got the arable farmer out of his own difficulties. Sight has been lost of this important fact, that the true balance within the industry itself has been upset, and this vital truth has been ignored, namely, that it is in the diversity of operations due to the diversity of our soil wherein lies the true strength of British agriculture. When I mention the depression afflicting our industry at the moment, possibly, it is not so necessary to give-very many particulars of that depression. I think the country as a whole is to-day realising better the position of agriculture. Although it is true to say that they admit that agriculturists are very depressed, I very much doubt whether the town dweller cares very much whether they are depressed or not. "The farmer," he says, "always is, and always was, a grumbler." Whether the farmer is a grumbler or not, I seem to have heard within the last two or three years something louder than a growl or a grumble from several other industries of our country. I seem to have heard a cry or two from the Lancashire cotton trade. I seem to have heard a grievance or two uttered in connection with the heavy industries of the Midlands and the North, and last, but not least, we have had a veritable shout of despair from the coal industry.
Although these other industries may have their difficulties to contend with, as undoubtedly they do from time to time, there are certain disabilities which afflict the industry of agriculture which are not shared by the other great industries of the country. I will only mention one or two. The first and obvious one, of course, is that of the weather, and the second is the slowness of our turnover. Our turnover in agriculture is extremely slow, because the processes of nature are extremely slow. We are condemned to wait for nature to fulfil her own processes before we can hope to get a crop which will show us a profit. I will not say anything further about
the weather, because I fear my language in that respect might possibly be unparliamentary. But I would like to say a further word about the question of turnover. When prices rise a farmer may be tempted to say, "Well, I see that that commodity is making a good price to-day, I think I will grow some of that crop. I will divide a certain portion of my farm to seed down that crop." He does so. He buys, perhaps, expensive seeds of the best quality, and he puts them in, and he cultivates the land in the approved manner. Then he has to wait, and it is the long waiting process which makes it so difficult for the farmer to have the situation under his control. Although prices may be high when he is sowing his seed, who knows that probably within a year or possibly 18 months, or before he can harvest and market the crop, the price may not have fallen away altogether?
The same arises on the other side. If prices fall, the farmer who has the whole of his farm in crop cannot cut his loss. He cannot do what so many people can do in other businesses and say, "Well, that stock represents to me so much. The market has gone against me, and I will cut my loss and get out of it." He cannot do that. He is committed for, perhaps, a year or nearly two years before he can get out of his own particular stock. When the farmer is called a grumbler, I think it is only fair to him that those who accuse him of being a grumbler should bear in mind some of these elementary facts. If any proof of the depression of agriculture is asked for, surely the answer can be given in a very few words. Let us look at the index figure. The cost-of-living index figure as given for the 1st January this year is 68 points above the pre-War datum line, but the index figure given for wholesale prices of agricultural commodities as sold on the market for December last is given as 38 points above the pre-War datum line—68 to 38, a gap of 30 points. Surely, that alone is sufficient proof of the condition in which the industry finds itself.
Actually, of course, the effect is very much greater than that, because our chief item of cost on our farms is that of labour. In my own district, labour to-day represents an increase of 115 points over
the pre-War datum line, and that is for a shorter number of hours worked during the week, which really brings the true figure to something approximating 120 points above the pre-War level. Farmers do not grudge a better standard of living to the agricultural worker at all. I am perfectly convinced after having spoken to them very often on this particular point that they do not. But they say, "We are up against it. We have this difficulty of paying for the labour. We want the labour; we want to be able to pay a price for the labour which will give the agricultural workers a reasonable standard of living." The agricultural worker has waited long enough for an increase; considerably longer than any other industry in the country, and farmers do not grudge him at all. The farmer is up against this fact, that, while willing to pay a higher rate of wages to his workmen, be has to reduce his costs in some way. If he cannot pay for all the labour he requires he has to have less labour. That is the position with which we are faced to-day. Tradesmen's bills and all other things into which the cost of labour enters are, of course, heavy items on the outgoing side of the farmer's account. You send your horse to be shod or your implements or machinery to be repaired —these are all things in which labour enters. This cost of labour, consequently, the farmer has to pay in very increased prices for even the smallest of services which are necessary to him in the course of his operations.
If we turn to feeding stuffs, what do we find? On my own farm last week, some of my wheat which was dry and of millable quality was sold at 40s. per quarter on the farm. On the same day, I was quoted the following prices for feeding stuffs. Middlings at £10 10s. a ton delivered to me on the farm and bran at £10 a ton delivered to me on the farm. The price of my wheat of 40s. per quarter converted to the price per ton was only £8 17s. 9d. How on earth is a farmer taking £8 17s. 9d. for his ton of wheat going to exist if he has to pay £10 10s. or £10 for the offals from the very commodity which he has sold to the producer? It is not altogether the fault of the middleman or the miller as some people wrongly suppose. What is the truth about it? Whenever wheat falls the price of flour falls. Whenever flour falls
there is acute competition between millers to make sales at almost any price, and their profit vanishes. What de they do? They say, "Well, if we cannot make a profit on our wheat flour we are going to make it on wheat offals." And they do. They charge the farmer, and the farmer has to pay. It is the same in the oil trade. How does the oil crushing industry behave if the price of oil goes down? Invariably you will find that the price of oilcakes goes up. The farmer pays again.
In addition to our burdens, we have statutory grievances. Apart from wages we have increased contributions to health, widows' and orphans' and old age pensions and things of that kind. They are shared, I admit, by other industries, but they can be afforded less by the agricultural industry. There is the question of tithe. I am perfectly well aware that in mentioning tithe I may be told that, if it were not for the Act of 1925, tithe would be somewhere up to £130 instead of being £109 10s. as it is to-day. Yes, but when the calculations were made which fixes the price of tithe at £109 10s. no one thought that the price of wheat was going to fall to 40s. If people require any proof of the depression existing in our industry to-day and the difficulties which we have to face, I will not ask them to take the mere word of the farmer. Let them ask the banker, the corn merchant, the miller, the land agent or even the lawyer, who does business in real estate. They will all tell the same thing. If that be so. it brings me to the broad question, is the industry worth saving or is it not? That is the great question. Ancient history supplies the answer, and it says: "Undoubtedly, yes. In the interests of the nation it should be saved and is worth saving." Modern history and the recent great War confirms that, every time.
There are four particular grounds which I should like to advance, which are sometimes overlooked in regard to the industry of agriculture. In the first place, agriculture is not merely a productive industry; it is a reproductive industry. What do I mean by that? I will take a simple illustration. Assuming that I have in one hand a lump of coal and in the other a handful of wheat. Both are productive. The wheat provides
human energy, while the coal provides energy for the engine. If I take one kernel out of the handful of wheat and drop it into the soil, that kernel of wheat is capable of producing another handful of wheat in a year's time. If I drop the lump of coal into the earth, it has no reproductive capacity whatever. Therefore, when you come to consider the relative importance of the two great industries of coal and agriculture, surely the one which has the prime claim to be considered the chief industry of the country is the one and only industry in the country which has this reproductive quality.
The next question is that of the displacement of labour in the agricultural industry. We all know what is happening to-day in connection with the displacement of labour in the coalfields. We know how acutely it affects our great problem of unemployment. I would ask the House to visualise what is going to happen if the only industry in the country which employs a number of men comparable to those employed to the coal industry, namely, the industry of agriculture, produces a great displacement of men. Supposing a large displacement of labour takes place in the agricultural industry, in addition to the existing displacement of labour in the coal industry, what will be the effect on urban industry and what will be the effect on urban labour? Urban industry will have to support the displaced labour from agriculture, because agriculture will not be able to support it. Urban industry, by means of increased taxation and increased rates, will have to support this displacement of agricultural labour. What about the effect on urban labour? The displaced agricultural labour will go to the towns, competing with urban labour, with the inevitable result that there will be a tendency to depress the level of the wages of urban labour. From both points of view, whether from that of urban industry or from that of urban labour, it is of vital importance that agricultural labour should be kept employed in the industry of agriculture.
There is also the question of our homegrown food supplies. Roughly, we import into this country foreign foodstuffs to the value of about £1,000,000 per day. We hear much about our adverse trade balance. To our very hands lies the
remedy. If we produce more home-grown food, even if only an additional supply for a week or a month, we shall strike a great blow to help the adverse trade balance. My fourth consideration is that of national security and our food supply in time of national emergency. I mention that the last, but I regard it as the most important of all. There are those who say: "Why bother about increasing production in the industry of agriculture. At the most, you could only produce extra food supplies for another week or two." I would like to answer that argument, and the answer is this: from history we can very easily see the duration of wars. There was the 100 years' war and the 30 years' war. The Napoleonic wars lasted 20 years. During the latter part of the 19th century the wars lasted two or three years, and the last Great War continued for 4½ years. The tendency obviously has been for wars to shorten. The next war may last not 4½ years; it may possibly last only 4½ months or possibly only that number of weeks or days. The engines of destruction are so potent that nobody knows what may happen. That is the answer to those who say that it is not worth while increasing our production of food in this country. It is vital that we should increase our food supplies, even though it might only mean a greater supply for a few weeks.
Then there is the increased danger to our food supply from submarines and aircraft. On that technical matter I should like to quote an expert. Vice-Admiral Sir Richard Webb, the President of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, speaking at King's College, is reported, in the "Times" of 24th February, to have said in regard to our overseas commerce and food supplies:
The submarine could not be ignored, of course, nor must we ignore or belittle the threat from hostile aircraft. Their potential menace was extremely grave, but it was an added menace, and the measures to combat it must be in addition to, and not in substitution for, those taken to meet the menace from surface vessels.
He went on, and this is the important part:
Then there was the second phase, the reception of our supplies and their distribution at terminal ports. Here we had a problem which the Navy was powerless to
solve, for the dock systems, with their railways and approaches, covered large areas which could be easily and heavily bombed by enemy aircraft. That was essentially an Air Force question, and one which called for earnest consideration. In the case of a distant adversary the threat might not be a serious one, but the tremendous strides in aircraft development brought ever nearer the threat to our ports. Some threatened objectives might be moved, but the ports of the Kingdom were geographical facts, immovable and unchangeable. There were something like 10,000,000 people in and around London who were largely dependent for their daily food on supplies through the Port of London, and no diversion to other ports could compensate for the closing of the port of London. He did not propose to attempt a close study of how that threat could be met.
The threat can only be met, I submit, in one way, and that is by a reasonable supply of home grown food stored in stacks or in barns dotted all over the face of the country, comparatively immune from hestile aircraft attack. What will the next war be. The next war will not be fur the dismemberment of our limbs by means of shot and shell. The next war or the next attack on this country will be an attack on our lungs and our stomachs; on our lungs by means of gas and on our stomachs by depriving us of our food supplies. It is vital in the interests of the nation that we should grow the last grain of wheat in order to be ready to meet that emergency, with which we may be confronted at any time.
I will now say something about the Amendments on the Paper. The Labour Amendment says that the remedy
depends upon the transference to the State of the ownership of all agricultural land.
The Liberal Amendment says:
No policy for that industry can prove beneficial which does not deal with tho rapid breakdown of the existing system of land ownership, and which does not include such a form of land tenure as will give greater security to the cultivator.
When we come to consider the "breakdown of the system of land ownership," I am quite aware that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is the greatest expert in connection with the breakdown. Yet it is not so many months ago that we heard him deploring in this House the fact that the landlord of the past had now finally passed. It is not stretching the truth to say that he shed tears over the passing of the landlord. I will ask the House to visualise the picture of the right hon.
Gentleman attending the funeral of the country landlord. Imagine him progressing through the churchyard and down the path to the graveside. Walking along would be one of the tenants of the old landlord. I can see the right hon. Gentleman linking his arm in that of the tenant and commiserating with him on his loss. He might, perhaps, use words somewhat on these lines: "Cheer up, my good friend! It is possible that you will not find all the consolation you look for in the old Prayer Book, and. possibly you may not even find it in the Deposited Book. Allow me to present you with a copy of my Green Book, the very latest Edition." I can imagine the tenant replying: "Thank you, Sir, for nothing."
The fact is, that both the Liberal Amendment and the Labour Amendment fall into one common error. Their common error is that they think all the troubles of agriculture lie in the system of land tenure. It is not so, and I speak as a farmer. Our troubles lie in this, or chiefly in this, that we are not able to get. for what we produce a price which will pay for the cost of production. The Amendments visualise State enterprise in the operation of farming. The point is whether it should be the State or the county council. All I have to say about it is this, that if the State or the county councils go into the business of farming, while the farmer is bankrupt to-day, the state and the county councils will be bankrupt to-morrow.
A few words as to remedies. I am well aware that there is no one panacea for the evils of the industry. If that be so, we must search the field and see whether, at least, we cannot get some small palliatives. The first thing to do is to view the industry as a whole and to restore the balance in the industry itself. We want to restore the soil to the production of those products most. suited to it by nature, whether it be wheat in, one case or meat and milk in the other. We are out of balance in the industry and we must restore the balance in the industry as the first step. The indivdual products with which we intend to deal must be dealt with seriatim, so that the industry may be made to pay and we may get a price relative to the cost of production.
I will put in the form of a catalogue the remedies which I would like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture. I will classify them under two heads, plus and minus, and put in the plus category those which will add to the profit side of the profit and loss account, and in the minus category those things which will detract from the farmers' profit and loss account. Let me deal with the plus category and the arable side of the industry. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to the prime cereal grown, the most important cereal grown, and that is wheat, and that he will reconsider his views in connection with wheat insurance. I am not going to elaborate it, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are proposals under which a farmer will be enabled, after he has sold his wheat, to come in voluntarily and contribute to a scheme which will ensure to him at the low prices ruling, something in addition to the price he actually receives in the market, which will enable him to meet his heavy costs of production.
Then, there is barley. I deplore the fact that the Government have come to a decision on this particular matter, and I am still unconvinced by what appears in the White Paper. For this reason, one vital thing is ignored. it is perfectly true that growers will and must buy a certain quantity of foreign imported barley of the highest grade in order to get a good quality of beer, and I also admit that if British farmers succeed in getting the right sample of English grown barley there is a market for it, but the fact is that in days gone by millers and brewers took from the British barley grower the great bulk of the middle-class barley, sound and sweet but not of the highest quality, which was quite good enough, and, in fact, was used, for making large quantities of the ales of this country. That is now completely ignored, and we have had foreign competition in that class of barley. Therefore I am unconvinced by the reasons given in the White Paper. There is no reason, so far as I can see, why we should not put a duty on agricultural and garden seeds. In England we are capable of producing as fine agricultural and garden seeds as any part of the world, but to-day we are absolutely glutted with foreign seeds from abroad. In many
parts of England the farmer has to pay for his main outgoings with his cereals and he has to look for his profit to what he may make on the production of his seeds.
Then there should be better marketing; and I know the Minister of Agriculture's views with regard to this important question. I am going to ask him to reconsider his decision with regard to grain storage and reconditioning. Some hon. Members have been at considerable pains to get all the information they can in connection with this matter, and we have put it before the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will be able to give some reconsideration to this particular matter. There is no other method by which we can hope to cheat the weather than by the construction of reconditioning and storage plant, to which we can take the grain which is out of condition and have it restored to condition against the time when it will be to the best advantage to sell. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend as regards meat supplies to His Majesty's forces, and I hope also that the milk publicity campaign will be pressed for all it is worth. If there are posters put up pressing people to consume larger quantities of milk, I hope they will read on these posters. "Drink more British milk.' The people of this country are largely using foreign condensed skimmed milk. I understand that it is impossible to put a ban on this, but if it is impossible to put a ban on this condensed skimmed milk, would it not be advisable to put a ban on that portion of it which comes here and which is not fit for consumption by infants. I think that would be a reasonable way out of the difficulty. As to that part of foreign condensed skimmed milk which is diverted into imitation ivory for making the backs of hair-brushes and imitation ivory billiard balls, we have quite enough surplus milk in this country which could be used for the manufacture of these articles.
We all look forward with great expectancy to some relief of rates on agricultural land, and, I hope, on agricultural buildings as well. I would like to put it. to the right hon. Gentleman in this connection that he should press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include in that remission all that portion of the tithe payment which represents
rates under the Tithe Act, 1925. He will remember that out of £109 10s. £5 is paid by the landowner to the tithe owner on account of rates which are to be met. If rates are taken off agricultural land it is only logical that this £5 should be taken off the tithe in order to make the position perfectly complete. Another thing I desire to mention and that is that the Land Tax should be abolished. A few years ago, the Inhabited House Duty was abolished, and, as a corollary of that, the Land Tax should be abolished. As regards long and short term credits, I do not know under which group they should figure, whether plus or minus, but if long term credit will enable capital to be increased then indeed it would be of real benefit to the farmer, and if on long or short term credit schemes the costs of interest are reduced, then, indeed, that would be another way of assisting the farmer.
I will not attempt to argue these remedies; I have detained the House already too long. Some of the remedies I have suggested I admit will cost money, but I will leave to the House this question: Is the industry from the widest point of view, from the national point of view, worth saving? There is only one answer to that question. and if the House takes the view which I trust it will then I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture will bring all his influence to bear on his colleagues in the Cabinet to view it from the same standpoint, and do all that is reasonably possible—but do it soon—to save British agricultural industry from complete decay.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
realises that the continuing decay in agriculture is a grave national concern and should be dealt with by the Government without delay, and is of opinion that the placing of British agriculture on a sound and efficient basis so as to yield a fair return to the farmer, with security of tenure, subject to proper use and a satisfactory standard of living to the agricultural worker, depends upon the transference to the State of the ownership of all agricultural land, the adequate provision of capital for drainage and buildings, the encouragement of a system of co-operation in buying and marketing, the stabilisation of prices, and the energetic pursuit of scientific research.
I should like to recall to the House the terms of the Motion, which seems to me to be what one might expect to appear in
a Motion submitted by hon. Members opposite. There is no word in the Motion indicating any constructive proposals for placing agriculture in a prosperous state. Hon. Members who are putting forward this Motion have merely proceeded in 1928 as they proceeded in 1896; they seek financial assistance to enable them to carry on their business, of which they have made such a lamentable failure. It is true that certain suggestions have been made by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion but the most important is that the Minister of Agriculture should secure from the Cabinet permission to place his hands in the pockets of other taxpayers in order to subsidise agriculture. That really is the kind of assistance which the Mover and Seconder of the Motion really suggest. Suggestions for grain storage plant, reconditioning, and other things fade into oblivion beside the proposal that financial assistance should be forthcoming if this great industry of agriculture is to be saved.
I want to refer to one or two things which are very important in relation to the assistance that has been given to agriculture in the past and the effect of that assistance as witnessed in the state of the industry at this particular moment. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have stressed the question of relieving agriculture of rates. In 1896 the same plea was put forward by agricultural Members of this House, and financial assistance to the extent of over £1,000,000 was granted in relief of rates. They failed to create for themselves a prosperous industry, and, in 1923, another Conservative Government, pressed as they have always been by farmers from behind, or by representatives from rural England, gave another financial contribution of about £3,000,000 in the hope that agriculturists would be able to place their industry on a sound foundation. Still agriculture continued a depressed industry. No real constructive effort was made to do what the hon. and gallant Member lamented, that is, secure for the agricultural community a better proportion of the ultimate prices paid, and in 1925 they again came forward to this House and asked for further financial assistance. The Rating and Valuation Act removed rates to the extent of 75 per cent. from all farm buildings. Not satisfied with this concession, they are
here again in 1928 with the same old song, "Tell me the old, old story"; more assistance at the expense of other industries. It seems to me that the more money the State provides, the more encouragement we give to this particular industry not to do the thing which ought to have been done many generations ago.
Agriculture, like all other industries, must, if it is going to place itself on a sound foundation and become a really prosperous industry, permit 20th century organisation to enter into not only its productive methods but its collection, grading, distribution and marketing problems. They will have to commercialise the agricultural industry as it has never been commercialised before. The Seconder of the Motion lamented several times that Tory millers were extremely unkind to Tory farmers, or that Tory middlemen were taking too big a toll from Tory farmers. From the commercial point of view, it is the same political mentality which barred the way to a successful agricultural industry in this country. The financial presents in 1896, 1923 and 1925 may or may not have been justified. They certainly were made to agriculture, and what has been the result from the point of view of preserving for us this great and vital industry? We have the evidence of two Commissions which have reported to the House.
5.0 p.m.
This is what they say with regard to the success or failure of those who have been in charge of the land for so long. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion referred to land ownership, with which I hope to deal in a few moments. But here the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation tell us that with all the financial assistance granted to agriculture from 1871 to 1923, the shrinkage in arable land reached 3,500,000 acres, or approximately 25 per cent., and that the tilled area declined to the extent of well over 27 per cent. The area of wheat went down 50 per cent., and, of barley 38 per cent. The Report summarises the total shrinkage in the area of all corn crops, including wheat, oats, barley, beans and peas in Great Britain, since 1871, as 30 per cent. Root crops, that is swedes, turnips, mangolds and so forth, declined by 33 per cent., so that the assistance granted has not prevented a terrific decline in the utilisation of our agricultural land.

Major PRICE: The hon. Member talks of financial assistance granted. There has been no financial assistance granted to agriculture. Agriculture merely has not had to pay.

Mr. WILLIAMS: By the same rule the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that if the mining industry was excused the payment of any rates in any mining area in Great Britain, the mining industry would be a very prosperous industry to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman puts forward the ingenious argument that no financial assistance had been granted to agriculture. The agricultural industry has been relieved from a payment that otherwise would have been made by that industry, and a correspondingly additional burden has been placed on the shoulders of people who, in many cases, were less able to bear it. My point is that with all this assistance, according to the evidence submitted to the Tribunal of Investigation, a tremendous decline in the utilisation of agricultural land has not been prevented. This has meant that at least 200,000 people have been turned off the land. It is too late for hon. Gentlemen in 1928 to lament the possibility of the countryside being deserted by rural labourers, who are flocking to the cities and towns and depressing the conditions of the urban population. They have already done this, and they have done it because the farmers themselves, or the landowners, or the two jointly, have failed to provide a really successful method of producing, collecting, grading and selling their produce.
It is no use for hon. Members to shake their heads. They cannot blame the agricultural labourer for the lack of prosperity in the industry to-day. Surely hon. Members opposite would not blame the miners for the failure of the mining industry to provide itself with prosperity. Who are to be blamed for the failure to bring prosperity to this industry, unless we ate to charge the owners of the land, who several years ago were regarded as the organisers of our agricultural life, and the tenant. farmers who have been charged with a duty of cultivating the land? At least we are justified in saying that if, after so many years, the farmers and landowners jointly have failed to organise their industry on such lines as to bring permanent
prosperity, then some other system ought to be attempted, for the present system obviously has failed. We say as a party that one reason for the failure is the method of land ownership. On every occasion when the State has been approached with a view to rendering assistance, whether for drainage purposes or for providing credit facilities or for providing some insurance machinery that would be cheaper than private machinery, the charge has always been made, and justifiably, that any assistance given to agriculture has ultimately filtered down into the pockets of the landowners. On the question of drainage what did the recent Drainage Commission say? They report that 1,700,000 acres of land are pretty well water-logged for want of drainage. The Commissioners further state in their Report:
It will be apparent from the foregoing summary that the administration of arterial drainage is conducted by a confused tangle of authorities, established by piecemeal legislation over 500 years. and exercising a great variety of powers in the country. There is no uniformity of method, of powers or of liability. Many drainage authorities are doing admirable work, others are doing none. The efforts of some authorities are rendered ineffectual by the lack of co-operation on the part of neighbours or by the fact that the drainage of adjoining land is under no control whatever, Liability for works is regulated by no common or uniform system and is frequently obsolete and obscure.
That seems to me to typify the whole of the agricultural industry. There is no uniformity in anything: there is no co-operation in anything. The same methods are employed in 1928 as were employed in 1808, and so long as the State will continue to come to the relief of the industry by providing subsidies of various kinds, we shall never get either co-operation or stabilisation, nor shall we have a really prosperous method of utilising the land in the best interests of the nation. Therefore, the first point I want to submit is this: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion said that to disturb the present landowners would be fatal, and that it was universally accepted that the present private land ownership was the best. Those statements were repeated by the Seconder of the Motion. I wonder if they have even read anything written by that great agriculturist, Lord Ernle.
In a volume entitled, "English Farming, Past, Present and Future," Lard Ernle, a Tory Lord who knew something about agriculture, said this:
In the great days of agricultural progress English landlords were the pioneers of improvements or missionaries of science. Their discharge of a high ideal of duty in the past, and as far as possible in the present, should be fully recognised. But their inability to continue the financial assistance that they formerly rendered is a danger. State aid to agriculture in relief from rates, in buildings, drainage, or the supply of services which have been neglected from want of capital, tends to increase the letting or selling value of land held by private owners.
And here is the salient point:
However greatly such a system might benefit the agricultural industry, it can with difficulty be justified where land is the private property of individual owners who cannot contribute to the expenditure.
That seems to me to be at least sound justification for sugesting that the present ownership of agricultural land has failed, first, because the existing owners are no longer attempting to organise the industry. They are unwilling to provide necessary capital for repair of old or erection of new buildings, and if they were ever so anxious to be useful in a scientific sense they have failed to acquire the requisite knowledge to be helpful to the industry. If one requires any more justification there is Lord Irwin, who was formerly Minister of Agriculture. He made a statement almost on a par with that of Lord Ernle which I have quoted. In this House he made a speech, to which both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion may have listened, and in the course of it he said:
We cannot watch this progress going on.
That is a reference to agriculture being left without capital. He went on:
The State will come in to fill the function of the old landlord by lending capital. When it does that you may depend upon it that it will claim some measure of control in the business that it finances, and so you may well find yourselves, in the course of the next 30 or 40 years, within measurable distance of something like nationalisation by a side wind.
We suggest that instead of waiting for 30 or 40 years for the nationalisation of agricultural land to come by a side wind,
we ought to see the needs of agriculture at this moment—the need from the point of view of providing large sums of money
for drainage purposes and bringing back into cultivation those 1,700,000 acres that to-day are derelict. We ought to see the necessity for providing credit facilities for agriculturists who require easy credits. We ought to see the necessity for organising better transport facilities for agriculture. In all these matters there is only one source from which the necessary capital can be forthcoming. But before the State could attempt either to drain privately-owned land, to subsidise indirectly an industry by providing cheap credit, or do any one of the things suggested here, at least the nation ought to know that any accrued value brought about as a result of national expenditure would accrue to the nation and not to a body of landowners who are rendering no service whatever to the industry at this moment. I was interested in a cutting in one of the Sheffield newspapers in December last. A representative of that paper had an interview with the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Dean) and this is what the correspondent said:
The Government is not prepared to free farm houses and farmsteads from rating, but it has come to the conclusion that all or almost all the rates now imposed on agricultural land should be abolished, the local authorities receiving compensation from the Treasury. This also will be proposed in the House of Commons next year as a Government Measure, and one agricultural M.P. tells me that if the Government carried it, it can be confident of retaining the agricultural seats it new holds in the West and South-west of England, which are the districts where Mr. Lloyd George hopes to win most by his latest land policy.
I commend that statement to hon. Members of the Liberal party. Is it true that before this Parliament departs the Government are preparing a scheme of financial assistance to farmers in such a way that no other term could be ascribed to it than that of sheer political bribery and corruption? That seems to be at least in the mind of the Tory M.P. who referred to this question at Sheffield, and it was later referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also by the Minister of Agriculture when speaking at Ixworth in Suffolk last week. If the Minister does not agree with the statement, will he tell us, when he replies, what he meant when he said that the Government were considering a reduction of the payments made by farmers towards rates? There
is one other reference I wish to make to this aspect of the question before leaving it. When I hear right hon and hon. Gentlemen opposite demanding the retention of the present landowning system and telling us about the serious plight of the industry, I am not always sure that all the statements made by them are perfectly true. Perhaps the Minister, as representing agriculture as a whole, will give us some explanation of the following figures. Notwithstanding the depression in the industry—some of the statements as to which we can believe—during 1913, there were 48,756 people who owned their holdings in this country. When the industry became more poverty-stricken in 1924, the 48,000 private owners had increased to 94,236. Agriculture, we are told, was never so sorely depressed as it was in 1923 and 1924, but two years later, in 1926, we find the number of privately-owned agricultural holdings increased to 107,184. Even though we are told that there is no hope for agriculture, we find that 12 months later, in 1927, the number of privately-owned agricultural holdings rose to 146,887.
So that with all the depression, all the poverty, all the bankruptcies, which we hear so much about but which seem so seldom to happen, the number of privately-owned holdings has been multiplied by three between 1913 and 1927. Will the Minister tell us how it is, if agriculture is in the hopeless morass which has been described, that there should be such a race on the part of these people to purchase the holdings of which hitherto they have been the tenants? Is it possible that the holdings are being bought by people who are not interested in the production of food? Is that a possible explanation? If not, then, either the landowners are compelling the tenants to purchase at the price determined by the owner of the land, or the tenants are anxious to purchase and will pledge their all for the purpose of becoming private owners. I can understand a tenant doing so if he feels that Tory Governments will continue in office in perpetuity, because what a, Tory Government does for agriculture is not to help in organising the industry, not to superimpose the will of the Minister as regard co-operation, not to do things which would
be of real value, not to give effect to the recommendations in the orange book, but, simply, to create an added value on these holdings which have been purchased during the last few years. There is another point which I would bring to the notice of the Minister and the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. Both those hon. Members referred to the vital fact that price determines prosperity or failure in their industry. With that statement we entirely agree. We need not argue that point. All we need do is to call in evidence the Linlithgow Committee. That Committee's Report provides the answer to hon. Members on the question of price. They tell us that £300,000,000 is annually whittled away between the producers of food and the consumers of food. The Linlithgow Committee say:
Our investigations have led us to the conclusion that the spread between the producers' and consumers' prices is unjustifiably wide.
May I ask the Mover or Seconder of the Motion, what has been done by their organisations to narrow down the margin? The Committee proceed:
Taken on the whole, distributive costs are a far heavier burden than society will permanently consent to bear.
What has agriculture done to lighten either its own burden or the burden on the consumer in this respect? The Committee also say:
Economies can be made and processes of collection and distribution can be shortened. In certain cases it should be possible to concentrate in the hands of one intermediary the success of functions now performed by several.
What have hon. Members done to give effect to this recommendation? The same Committee say:
We have instanced unjustifiable distributive charges and we have recorded our view that individual traders and groups of traders are, in some cases, making higher profits than are warranted by the services they perform. Those profits should be reduced.
What have hon. Members opposite done to help to reduce the unnecessarily high profits taken by the middlemen? The answer is this. Notwithstanding Commission after Commission, bringing to the light of day the facts about the lack of organisation in this industry, agriculture itself has taken no steps in the required direction. New Zealand, Australia,
Canada, United States, Denmark, Holland—in every one of these countries we find a state of things very different from that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman last week when he said he could do nothing to persuade the farmers to adopt co-operation as part of their system, and that he could not superimpose it upon them. In Australia when the farmers themselves failed, when they were only co-operating partially and only succeeding partially, the State came in and, by organisation, made co-operation well-nigh a necessity. The New Zealand Government did the same, and to-day as a result of the co-operation which was entered into by individual farmers plus pressure from the Government, New Zealand can beat us every day of the week as regards mutton and butter. The same remark applies to Canada, where 70 per cent. of the wheat is disposed of through wheat pools in the building up of which the Government have assisted.
A suggestion has been made about grain storage and grain prices. The only way of preventing these continual fluctuations of prices is to put into effect the terms of this Amendment. Prices can only be stabilised when the Government are prepared, even in spite of the farmers and in spite of the agricultural industry, to set up import boards, retaining for themselves monopoly powers regarding the importation of wheat. In that way they may be able to prevent the fluctuations of price which always affect the smallest and poorest farmers. To give a very recent figure in this connection, I may mention that in 1925 the lowest price of wheat per quarter was 44s., and the highest 62s. 3d., while the average was 54s. ld. Until you set up a system whereby every producer of wheat is guaranteed the average price for the year, then the small farmer can claim, with justification, that he is in a depressed state. If there is one thing which the farmers require more than anything else, it is stabilisation of prices. Why do not the Minister and the Government take steps in that direction? Obviously, because to do so would be to violate every one of their instincts which are all in favour of private enterprise, and profit every time. How can they do anything which will endanger their Conserative middlemen friends, who are exploiting both the agricultural
industry, as represented by the farmer and the labourer, and also the community in general?
We say that, first, the land ought to belong to the State. The State should be ready to provide the finance necessary for huge drainage schemes, whereby useful work could be provided for thousands of people who are out of work at this moment. Permanent work could also be provided, when the drainage schemes have been undertaken and completed, in the production of food on the 1,700,000 acres which now lie derelict. The State could also provide credits where required; they could set up import boards, to stabilise prices and ensure to the farmer, as is done in the case of beet sugar to-day, a guaranteed price over a fairly long period. Then we say that, as the last thing—or if not the last thing at all events a very help-ful thing—the farmer ought to be assisted wherever he shows a willingness to develop co-operation inside the industry. Where the farmers themselves fail to do what the nation, through the Government, feel to be necessary, we ought to have sufficient courage to superimpose co-operative organisation upon them.
We ought not to respond to a Motion of this character, but we ought to insist that every penny-piece granted to this industry should only be granted on the condition that it is to be utilised for the purpose of building up a sensible cooperative system, eliminating unnecessary middlemen and waste, and providing for the producer of food, not only the time to devote to the production of food, but a real return at the conclusion of his effort and a reasonable wage for his employés. That would be a much better guarantee of the maximum production of food than we shall ever have, as long as we keep on trying expedients which have failed for a hundred years, and will continue to fail. That is, briefly, the policy which we would pursue—national ownership of the land, national finance for the provision of these various schemes, the superimposing of co-operation where the farmers themselves have failed, the stabilising of prices, and the guaranteeing to the agricultural employer and the
farm labourer of a much better share in their produce than they enjoy at the moment.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment. In doing so I wish to associate myself with the Motion to the extent of saying that we on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to prevent the decay of agriculture and to secure its rehabilitation. We agree with the sentiments expressed by the Seconder of the Motion that this great industry ought to be preserved and strengthened in the national interest. Where we differ from hon. Members opposite is regarding the means to be adopted. The Motion sets forth only one suggestion for meeting the agricultural difficulty. It is true that the Mover made some rather timid references to three or four small proposals whereby something might be done. One of them was the idea that it might be made compulsory on the part of millers to use a definite proportion of British wheat in milling; the second was that there should be a duty on imported flour; and the third was that there should be a tax on the export of British hops. I did not notice that even the Mover of the Motion, who made those suggestions, thought they would go very far. What struck me was that, on the one hand, his idea is to get cheap offals for the British farmer, and presumably, by suggesting a duty on the import of flour, to bring about dearer bread to the English people.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: No.

Mr. RILEY: I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Member will deny that. He made it perfectly clear that the really important thing is to secure relief from the rate burdens which now rest on agriculture. Upon that question he was perfectly straight and frank, and his real remedy for the ills of agriculture is to get the Government to take a further step towards removing the one-quarter of rate burdens now resting on the agricultural industry. The utmost that that proposal can mean now is something like £3,500,000 a year. Is agriculture going to be saved by a relief of £3,500,000 a year? If you take the 1925 Report in regard to agricultural output, you will find that the value of that output is now about £230,000,000 a year. Is it to be
assumed that a saving of £3,500,000 is going to save an industry in which is involved a turnover of £230,000,000? I suggest that as being an aspect that the hon. and gallant Member did not bring out.
The real objection to the proposal is that it has been tried, not once, but repeatedly, and that it has been a disastrous failure. If it, had not been a failure, there would have been no need to repeat the proposal here to-day. When my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who moved the Amendment, referred to the assistance which has been given to agriculture by the State, the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise), I think it was, objected that there had been no actual direct assistance given and that agriculture had only been relieved in respect of rates, but he must be very badly informed and must have forgotten the simple fact that the Treasury is contributing a direct grant of £4,500,000.

Major PRICE: The claim was that this relief of rates was of financial assistance to the agricultural industry, whereas, in point of fact, it was preventing something coming out of the agriculturists' pockets. It does not assist the industry as an industry at all; it is not fresh money coming into the industry at all.

RILEY: The obvious reply to that is that if it does not assist the industry, why is it wanted, and why is it being asked for? It is really astounding, in view of what has been done from national sources for the relief of agriculture, that anyone should have the audacity to come again and ask for another concession of this character. In 1896, when the annual value of agricultural land for the purposes of assessment was standing at £2,600,000, the Treasury undertook to relieve agriculture of half of that amount, namely, £1,300,000. It went on giving that annual contribution from 1896 to 1923, and in that time the Treasury, handling not rural ratepayers' money but the national taxation of the country, granted no less than £35,000,000 for the relief of agriculture. In 1923, when the annual value of agricultural land for assessment purposes had risen to £12,000,000, this House undertook to
take another quarter off that, which amounted then to about £3,300,000. That sum, added to the £1,300,000, gives an annual contribution of about £4,600,000, and it means that from 1896 down to the present year, in direct Treasury grants, £56,000,000 has been handed out for the relief of agriculture in this country.
But that is only part of it, for what occurred from 1896 to 1923 was this, that the rateable value of the localities, owing to the extension of local government, went up, and owing to the fact that the land was relieved of one part of its assessable liability, other forms of property in the area had to make up the difference. That has been equal to an average of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 ever since 1896. Therefore, if you take the direct contribution of the Treasury since 1896, and if you take the relief of land of half its burdens, there has been a relief of agricultural burdens amounting to £160,000,000 in the last 30 years. I would like to know what industry in this country has had relief like that, and all for nothing. Here, in spite of it, 30 years afterwards, the same old tale is being told, and more relief is. required. I submit that, judged by actual experience, this policy of trying to find a solution for the troubles of British agriculture along the lines of the relief of rates has failed. One of the first things that has to be done is for the nation to recognise that the conditions of agriculture are such, and such are the limits, if one may say so, of the ability of those who hitherto have been responsible for its conduct to meet its problems, that the nation must accept the responsibility and, in doing so, make sure of receiving such benefits as will justify the national expenditure involved.
Mention has been made of the fact, revealed to us in the Report published last December with regard to the condition of drainage, that there are close on 2,000,000 acres of land in urgent need of drainage; and we have had it pointed out in this Report that there are over 3,000,000 acres which also require attention, and that this land which now requires attention amounts to one-seventh of the entire cultivable land of the country. Finally, in their recommendations, the Commissioners say:
We are, therefore, strongly of the opinion that until the State is prepared to accept due financial obligations with regard to such works as those above indicated, very little progress can be made, even under the scheme which we have adumbrated, towards the realisation of the ideal of an 'efficient system of arterial drainage.'
Here we have the confession of a competent Commission examining the situation that there is no prospect of this deplorable condition being remedied except on the basis of national responsibility. We have had an instance of that situation in recent times in the Ouse drainage scheme, which has been dragging on year after year. I am told by people in the locality that for 40 or 50 years the problem has been there. Only last year a Select Committee of this House and the other place was appointed to examine the scheme, and although the Government were prepared to offer £1,500,000 as a subsidy to that scheme, the owners and the occupiers were not prepared to do their part, and the whole thing fell through. It is, therefore, clear that there is no likelihood of the situation being dealt with except by national obligation. We, on these benches, contend that if we have to accept national responsibility and spend national money, the nation ought to be in a position to reap the benefit which accrues from the expenditure of that money. Under the present circumstances there is no doubt whatever that the money which is being spent in relief of rates and on the drainage schemes of the Ministry is sooner or later simply going into the pockets of the landlords and increasing the value of their land.
There is one important quotation that I Would like to make from some remarks by the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). In 1923, when the Agricultural Rates Act, which reduced the liability of agricultural land by another quarter, was under discussion, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen said:
No economist can deny that a reduction of rates must inevitably lead to an increase of land values. That is not a question which one can argue about. It is a fact. You may say that landlords at present will not increase rents. I do not believe that they will, but if an estate is being sold—and they are being sold every day, as will he seen by a glance at the advertisement lists—then the purchaser, if he is a business man, or his agent, if he is a business person, will obviously take that into account in fixing the rent. … You are merely
adding the subsidy to the capital value of the agricultural land of the country. That is one reason why I hope this Bill will be opposed with violence and vehemence by all those who object to national money being used in order to enrich one class of the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1923; cols. 1818–9, Vol. 164.]
That is not from this side of the House, but from a Member who is honoured by Members on the other side when he happens to attend. Therefore, we say that the only way you can meet the agricultural position is to find a foundation which is equitable and sound, so that the nation can go forward and utilise its national resources to the aid of agriculture. We object to national money being used to buttress up worn-out institutions. I will give further quotations, not from members of the Labour party, but from members of the Conservative party. Take, for instance, Lord Irwin. When he was Minister of Agriculture he said, speaking at Banbury in 1923:
A considerable part of the difficulties of agriculture were due to the fact that the landowning system was breaking down.
Then Lord Bledisloe said:
Landlords have ceased to lead. Land to-day in the hands of British landlords is more than ever an amenity.
Finally, Lord Ernle said:
The landlords have not the money to make the necessary changes. To say this only means that the modern system of farming has broken down in one of its most essential features.
There is our case. We say that you have to recognise that the old system of land-lord and tenant, so far as British agriculture is concerned, is no longer efficient. It has had its day, and we have found by experience that it does not meet new problems and new conditions. Therefore, you have got to have national resources with national initiative and a national owning of agricultural land. If the policy for which we stand be not accepted, there is a field that would be productive if it were energetically pursued. Reference. was made by the Seconder of the Motion to the fact that so far as the Eastern counties are concerned there is a market unrivalled in the world, with a consuming capacity the like of which is not to be found anywhere else; and yet agriculture languishes. Why does not the Ministry and the Government pursue more vigorously a line of action in reviving
agriculture which, so far as it has gone, has proved an eminent success? Why have not the Government done all they could to adapt, the development of ministerial work to the needs of small populations and extended small holdings in a much more vigorous way? The late Mr. Bonar Law in 1922 appointed a Tribunal to inquire into British agriculture, and in their report which was made in 1924 they made this statement:
We have given close attention to the experience of this country in the provision of small holdings in the last 15 years, and the remarkable developments that have taken place, and we wish to record our opinion that the movement is of the greatest value in maintaining an agricultural population, and that the time has come for a renewed and vigorous effort to extend the establishment of smallholders upon the land.
What has the Ministry done since then? I asked a question yesterday, and the reply was that an Act of Parliament, which had been talked about by the Government for years, a Small Holdings Act, was passed in 1926, and it had in two years brought about only 195 new holdings. Yet here is a Tribunal reporting that the policy has been so successful that it ought to be pushed with vigour and energy. From 1908 to 1914, under the Act of 1908, 13,500 holdings had been established at the rate of over 2,000 a year. Under the Land Settlement Act of 1919, from 1919 to 1923, 16,000 holdings had been established averaging something like 3,000 a year. Then the Government stopped, and in 1926 they brought forward their Bill. I am going to remind the Minister what he told the House at the time. He said that in the Bill they were visualising the provision of 8,000 new small holdings at the rate of 2,000 a year. That was nearly two years ago, and yet only 195 have been established! Why has not more been done? Because the Ministry have not pursued the job with energy and vigour; and then they talk about remedies while they have this field which is recommended by every authority in agriculture, about which there is a general consensus of opinion as to its utility. This field is neglected, and Members come to this House asking for doles in the shape of relief of rates. So far as we are concerned, the dole policy will not be supported, but if the Minister will come forward with a policy
of using national resources to establish national assets, this party will help in every way.

Mr. DREWE: Coming from a purely agricultural area, I should like to associate myself with the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Tiverton Division (Lieut.-Colonel AclandTroyte). I do not want to follow the arguments that have been advanced from the opposite side at any length, because from my knowledge of farmers and conditions in the countryside, I am certain that, no body of farmers will tolerate nationalisation of the land or any form of rigid control such as we have had suggested from the other side. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment promised us control of practically everything that the farmer has to buy or sell, with the exception of promising us control of the weather.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is, consciously or unconsciously, misinterpreting what I said. The only thing I put forward was that the farmers themselves ought to establish co-operation in a national sense, and that where the farmers themselves failed the right hon. Gentleman ought to step in and assist them.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. DREWE: I do not want to say anything unjust, but I did understand that if the farmers do not do what the hon. Gentleman wished, the Government should come in with some form of control; and that is what the farmers will not tolerate. They had control during the War and they got tired of it, and they will not go back to it again. I believe throughout the House that there is a general realisation of the fact that agriculture is not doing at all well, and that at last many of our people who live in the towns, and are not so much associated with the, land, also realise that farming is not doing as well as it ought to do. It is essential that we should have a prosperous agricultural industry for the wellbeing of our nation. There are some farmers still in this country who think that Parliament by legislation can immediately restore prosperity to the industry. We have got to face the fact that there are only two really big, things that would immediately restore prosperity to the industry, neither of which we can get. We cannot get Protection until we
get a definite demand from the people who live in the towns, and until they realise that the position is so serious that they have got to demand it for their own sakes. During the present state of the finances of this country we can get no new form of subsidies.
If anyone goes to the countryside and meets farmers, he will be told that the one thing farmers want is continuity of policy and stability, and not change of policy whenever there is a change of Government. It was for that reason that I am sorry that the Opposition have seen fit to move an Amendment to this Motion. There is a genuine desire in this House to do something to restore prosperity to farmers. If you meet farmers or the Farmers' Union, or farmers' men, you will always find that the one thing they say is, "Why cannot you treat agriculture as a national problem and not as a party question?"
That is one thing which I had hoped this House might realise. When this Government took office it was their intention to try to treat agriculture as a national problem, and not as a party problem. They wished to call a conference of those engaged in the industry, of farmers, their workers and landowners, to try to frame some national policy which could he submitted to the political parties in this House with the idea. of getting a national policy. As we know, that project unfortunately broke down, but I still hope that something on those lines may take place, in the interests of getting a national policy for agriculture, as I believe there is a genuine desire to help forward farming in this country.
I do not believe the Government can take a lead in this direction, but I would make an earnest appeal to the leaders of the National Farmers' Union. I know they have done much towards framing an agricultural policy, which they have submitted to the Minister on behalf of farmers themselves. I would suggest to the National Farmers' Union that they should get into much closer contact with the workers engaged in the industry in this matter of framing an agricultural policy. I believe if the National Farmers' Union could come to this Government, or any other, and say: "Here is a considered agricultural
policy, endorsed not only by the farmers, but also by the majority of the workers, and by the majority of the landowners," they would be in a very strong position. I believe that would be a great step towards getting this problem treated as a national issue and not as a party one. So long as agriculture is left to be, what it always has been, a sort of sport for politicians, we shall never make any headway in farming in this country. I agree with what has been said by the two speakers from this side of the House that the two most important things which the Government can do, and I believe will do, as soon as they can to help the industry, are to give relief in the matter of rates and get increased grants from the Road Board, more particularly for our rural roads. I would like to say on behalf of the farmers, that they are deeply grateful for the assistanee which this Government have given in the way of grants for rural roads, which have never been given before, and also for the rating relief given in the past. I am not in the least ashamed of the fact that the Conservative party have given grants in relief of rates on two previous occasions, and it would make a very fine, ending to their record in this respect if this Government could ultimately clear the land of all rates altogether.

Mr. MacLAREN: Would the hon. Member be agreeable that the farmers should have no votes, if they pay no rates?

Mr. DREWE: The only suggestion I am making is that the land should be cleared of rates. If a farmer farms land he has to live in a house, and his house will still be rated, and, therefore, he will keep the vote. I am not suggesting that the rates should be taken off his dwelling-house.

Mr. MacLAREN: Not yet.

Mr. DREWE: I am not suggesting that at all. My only argument is a very old argument, but one which, I think, is absolutely sound, and that is that land is the raw material of the farmer, and that no other raw material in this country has to bear rates, so far as I know.

Mr. RILEY: What about his buildings?

Mr. MAXTON: There is no other raw material which lasts for ever.

Mr. DREWE: The buildings are relieved of three-quarters of the rates at the present time. The suggestion I am making, which I hope will be accepted by the Government, is that land should be relieved of all rates altogether. We have been told that if you take the rates off the land you immediately put a present into the pockets of the landlords.

Mr. MacLAREN: Hear, hear!

Mr. DREWE: I have not been able to find anyone yet who has produced any evidence to show that rents have gone up as a result of previous rating relief.

Mr. MacLAREN: Does the hon. Member deny the economic fact—it is not a question of agriculture, but of economics—that a landlord will be able to get more in rent if rates are less and less in rent if rates arc higher? Does he deny that economic law? [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you a Socialist?"] I am not an ass.

Mr. DREWE: What I do say is that it is the absolute fact to-day that rents have not gone up as a result of previous rating relief. I do not want to enter into any controversy across the Floor of the House, but if the hon. Member will come down at the next election and stand in opposition to me in a rural constituency, he advocating full rates on the land., I will meet him with my policy and beat him. I think that is a fair offer. I do not wish to show any lack of respect, but I do feel that some of the arguments we have heard from the other side are based on the fact that hon. Members opposite are not closely in touch with what is going on in our rural parishes.

Mr. MAXTON: That is much too sweeping.

Mr. DREWE: I do not want to say anything insulting, but if you go down and meet farmers, and meet their men, you will find they are agreed that that is a step which would be definitely helpful and which they all want. It is difficult to find any return showing the level of rents over a long period of years, but what we can find is a return of the gross annual value of the land for
Schedule A purposes. In 1896, when half the rates were taken off the land, the gross annual value of the land was returned at £39,045,000. I do not want to read out the figures for every year, but we had a progressive decline in the gross annual value of the land from that time up to the time of the War, in spite of half the rates having been taken off agricultural land. These Schedule A figures are based on actual rents. Values dropped from £39,045,000 in 1896, when half the rates were taken off agricultural land, to £37,071,000 in 1913–14. I think that indicates that there is no truth in the argument that rating relief has put money into the pockets of the landlords. In 1923 we got another quarter taken off the rates on agricultural land. I do not think sufficient time has elapsed for us to be able to show what the result of that has been, but over the long period following the reduction of the rates by a half there was no suggestion that values went up.
Another point which is sometimes forgotten by hon. Members opposite is that the number of occupying-owners is constantly increasing. If they still believe, in spite of the figures I have quoted, that this money goes into the pockets of the landlords, there is a very substantial class numerically who would benefit immediately. In the last census of production issued by the Ministry of Agriculture I find it estimated that out of a total of 409,400 holdings, over 25 per cent. are occupied by cultivating owners, and it is true to say that about 25 per cent. of the whole of our land under grass and crops is in the hands of the occupying-owners; so there is no doubt that by rating relief you would give immediate benefit to these people, and I maintain that you would give immediate benefit over the whole range of farmers, whether dairy farmers on grass land or corn-growing farmers on arable farms. It has been suggested that it is a rather curious thing to ask for more relief in respect of rates when the industry is in such a bad condition in spite of the rating relief it has already had. In reply to that I would only say that in 1896, when we were given the relief of half the rates, it was the intention of Parliament, I believe, that the land should pay only half rates for ever afterwards, but as rates have gone up while the
grant has remained the same, we are paying to-day, in spite of the fact that we pay only a quarter of the rates, something like four times the amount in rates that we paid in 1896. I think that fact makes it quite excusable for us to come forward to ask that the rates should be altogether removed from our raw material.

Mr. MAXTON: Would you abolish rent, too?

Mr. DREWE: That is a very good idea. Any other suggestion? I like these suggestions.

Mr. MAXTON: Tackle that one first.

Mr. DREWE: Depression does exist in agriculture, and it has got to be faced, and in my opinion it ought to be faced as a national issue and not as a party one, with the different parties trying to make party capital out of it. I have been farming my own land ever since the War, and having mixed with farmers in my own constituency I realise, as does everybody else in the House who is connected with the land, that the men employed in this industry are very highly-skilled men, and I feel they are being paid at a low rate by comparison with the pay of highly-skilled men in other occupations. That is one of the reasons why I want to see increased prosperity in the industry. I do not believe there is anybody in the House who can say the industry is sufficiently prosperous today to be able to pay higher wages than are being paid at present, but we have a Wages Board, which, generally speaking, is working very smoothly throughout the country, and our men have the assurance that if we can bring about general prosperity in the industry they will share in it. It is for that reason in particular that I wish to see a revival of agricultural prosperity in this country.
There are only one or two smaller points which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. He has already been asked about the question of feeding His Majesty's Forces with home-grown meat, and I think he will give a satisfactory reply sometime during this Parliament. Our farmers feel very strongly about this question. They say that it is the policy of this Government to help forward the purchase of British goods, but that British
meat is not being given to the Forces. The question of the Land Tax was raised earlier in the Debate. There are two small, but none the less important questions, concerning another Department—with which I hope the Minister will use his influence—and those are rural telephones and postal facilities. I know that much progress has been made in regard to rural telephones, but much more progress ought to be made in order to link up our isolated villages with the market towns. That is an urgent and important question. Probably the Minister of Agriculture will be surprised to know that in my constituency, which is a perfectly civilized constituency, I have got quite a number of farms which only get deliveries of letters on three days a week. I know that many parishes only have a delivery of letters once a day, but when you find a number of farmers who only get deliveries three days a week, you seem to be getting back to olden times. The farmers of whom I speak are those farthest away from the stations, and this state of things often causes very serious loss. Very often the goods they require are some five or 10 miles away. They may be perishable goods, and as they do not get their letters except on three days a week, the farmers do not know when the goods reach the station and in this way heavy losses are frequently incurred.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton referred to the cider industry. We have a very old established cider industry in Devonshire. I know the Government have often stated that farmers must work out their own salvation, and not rely too much on Parliament. Recently in Devonshire farmers have formed themselves into a co-operative cider-producing company which guarantees that the Devonshire cider which they produce is pure and made from apples with no alcohol or sugar. That concern is trying to make a start, and those farmers are deserving of every encouragement. They are not asking for safeguarding, but they do want protection against the inferior article. What they really want is a Pure Cider Bill. Can the Minister see his way to introduce a Pure Cider Bill or allow such a Measure to be introduced by a private Member? If a private Member introduces a Pure Cider Bill, will the Government grant facilities for its passage? The farmers of
Devonshire have combined, and they are producing a good article. They do not want protection or grants, but they do want to be safeguarded against people passing off an inferior article as Devonshire cider. The passing of a Pure Cider Bill would encourage the establishment of a most flourishing co-operative business in the West of England and other counties. I appeal to hon. Members to consider whether it would not be better to treat this problem of agriculture as a national and not a party question.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I have been somewhat disappointed at the course which the Debate has taken. I represent a constituency which is largely agricultural, and consequently I look with a good deal of sympathy upon the Amendment which has been moved. The last part of the Motion deals with
the necessity of providing without delay all practical measures for relieving the heavy burdens now weighing upon the industry.
I hope the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion will not think I am treating him unfairly when I say that I never heard in his speech anything about the heavy burdens on agriculture, and he certainly made no proposals for removing them.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I dealt with the question of the rates.

Mr. DAVIES: The whole of the rates on agricultural land only amount to £3,500,000 out of a total turnover of £225,000,000 a year. We have had some references to malt and barley, whisky, beer, cider and garden seeds, but the only proposal put forward in relief of agriculture was one for the abolition of the tithe.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: That is not so. All I suggested was that the £5 out of the £109 10s. now paid should be extinguished when the rates are taken off.

Mr. DAVIES: I thought the hon. and gallant Member wanted to abolish tithes, but I now gather that he only desires to abolish a portion of them. How will that help the tenant? Up to the present the relief which has been given to the farmers has gone into the pockets of the landlords who have raised the price of their land. That is how the landowners have profiteered since the War.
[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at that argument, but do they deny that the prices obtained for land by the landowners immediately after the War were not high?

Major PRICE: That was not profiteering, because everything was high in price.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) says that everything was high after the War, but do hon. Members opposite contend that there was no profiteering after the War? I can give instances in Anglesey where the price has been so high that the landowner had to take the farms back and the tenants forfeited their deposits. The demand which is being made upon the Government for long credits for agriculture is due to the fact that the men who bought their farms during the War period are unable to make them pay on account of the high prices paid for the land. In 1912 only 10 per cent. of the land was owned by the occupiers. A statement has been issued by the Board of Agriculture which states that at the present time no less than 28 per cent. of the land is owned by occupiers. Does anybody suggest that the men now working on their own land are doing well? I say without hesitation that those farmers who are in the worst position are the men who bought their farms since the War. Nothwithstanding these facts, we find a Tory Member moving a Motion which declares that the Government are going to help the farmers by relieving them of their burdens, and yet not a word has been said as to how those burdens are to be relieved, except the paltry proposal to relieve the owners of one-quarter of the rates.
The present Government are responsible for throwing a greater burden upon the rates in respect of education. and they have also tightened up the pension schemes to such an extent that many of the recipients will have to depend upon charity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken £20,000,000 from the Road Fund; we can get no further assistance from that Fund, and if more money is required for roads, it will have to come from the general Revenue. In 1926 the Chancellor of the Exchequer took away one-third of the money annually allotted to the Road Fund. That money was diverted from
its proper object, and last year the amount taken in this way from the Road Fund was a little over £4,000,000. Consequently those burdens which should have been borne by the Road Fund will ultimately have to be borne by the farmers in the community. The hon. Member who moved this Motion said he condemned both Liberal and Labour policies. The Farmers' Union, which is not a liberal-minded body, have said that the Government are humbugging the farmers, and I quite agree with that statement. What have the Government done for the farmers? They have given £1,000,000 a year to the Colonial farmers to help them to organise competition with the people in the home market. To-day another proposal has been put forward by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to nationalise the whole of the land of the country, and, having done that, the intention is that ultimately through the stabilisation of prices the agricultural industry will be nationalised.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I thought I stated my argument pretty clearly. I said that the nation ought to take over all the agricultural land, and that the nation ought to provide all the capital required for drainage and other things necessary for the proper cultivation of the land.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member not only goes in for nationalising the whole of the agricultural land of the country, but he also advocated the stabilisation of prices. Let me point out that the stabilisation of prices means the control of the whole farming industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] As a matter of fact, a Bill to stabilise prices was passed through the Senate in America, and it would have become law but for the intervention of the President. The object of that Bill was to control the prices of all imported farm produce. Surely it is no good controlling the price of imported goods unless at the same time you control prices at home. When the price of the commodity rises the production at home immediately goes up, and, consequently, there would be no benefit to the farmer. I am quite open to consider any form of stabilisation of prices, but I am certainly opposed to a system which, as it seems to me, would, under present conditions, involve, firstly, the control of all imports into this country, with possibly a dire effect on the price
of the food of the community, and, secondly, would compel the Government ultimately to control the farmers and farm labourers of this country. Then the hon. and gallant Member referred to the policy of the Liberal party, but I noted that he very carefully abstained from criticising it.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I did not want to waste time.

Mr. DAVIES: I hope that the next time the hon. and gallant Member addresses the House he will think that policy worthy of a little more serious consideration. He said that the policy of the Liberal party is the elimination of the landowner, but, as I have already pointed out, the landowner is eliminating himself as fast as he possibly can, at the highest price he can obtain for his land. [Interruption.] He is transferring the land to the occupying farmer, with this difference, that, while the hon. and gallant Member was talking about the landowner, he was not thinking of the farmer. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I was thinking of all landowners.

Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. and gallant Member seriously say that, when he referred to the elimination of the landowner, he was referring to the elimination of the owner of his own farm? Surely, he must have read the policy of the Liberal party before condemning it, and in that case he would have known—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member has not got it, I shall be pleased to hand him a copy. [Interruption.] I am talking about the policy of the Liberal party, and not what Tory Members have been describing on the platform. The policy is this: We want to obtain for the farmer security of tenure. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has it now!"] Really, I hope hon. Members will treat this matter seriously. To tell me, a lawyer who happens to know something about land tenure in this country, that the tenant farmer has security of tenure, is sheer nonsense, because, if the tenant farmer has security of tenure, it would not be the case that 28 per cent. of the land of this country has been taken over by the tenants for farming purposes. I had the honour, in 1912, of
being a member of Lord Haversham's Committee, which was by no means a Radical committee. The whole evidence obtained by that Committee—and it was the evidence of some of the larger farmers of the country—was that they did not want to buy their farms, but wanted to put all the money they had into their own business, and they wanted, if possible, to be free at the end of their lives to pass it on to their children. There is no evidence anywhere that the tenant farmer in this country desires to buy his farm except as a last resort. He has to do so in order to keep his home, in order to keep his living and his industry, and in order to protect the improvements which he has made on his farm and for which he is not entitled to compensation.
The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion dealt mostly with arable land, but the farming of this country is not the farming of arable land. Sixty-nine per cent. of the agricultural produce of this country last year came from pasture land, and yet we imported from abroad last year no less than £84,000,000 worth of butter, eggs and dairy produce. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member, could not we have produced that ourselves; and, if we did not produce it, why not? Last year alone we imported from abroad £355,000,000 worth of food. Why was not that food produced in this country? I will tell the hon. and gallant Member why. Constantly, since 1900, the rent of agricultural land has gone up. Hon. Members may shake their heads, but if they will take my advice they will read the Report of the Haversham Committee, where they will find the evidence on which I am basing my statement. They will find more than that, namely, that the increased rent went into the increased value obtained by the landowner for his land. If hon. Members doubt that, let me give one instance, that of an estate with which I am very well acquainted. The rents on that estate were put up by anything from 10 to 33 per cent. four years ago. Then a whole parish was put up for sale, and the land was offered in the first instance to the tenants at a valuation based on the increased rents. There is a good deal of talk about reducing rates, but not a single speaker this afternoon has suggested reducing rents. I think it may be said that the rents in pre-War days may not have
been excessive, but there is nothing to justify the great increase that has taken place in rents since the War, and I suggest that, if hon. Members really desire to do something for the farmer, they should bring pressure to bear on someone to reduce rents, at any rate to pre-War figures.

Major STEEL: Does not the hon. Member realise that the cost of repairs has also increased enormously, and the increased cost of repairs is a justification for the increase of rent?

Mr. DAVIES: I am glad to have from the hon. and gallant Member the admission that rents have gone up, because some hon. Members, apparently, do not admit it.

Major STEEL: They have gone up to meet the additional cost of repairs.

Mr. DAVIES: That, at any rate, is the first admission we have had that they have gone up. No doubt the cost of repairs to farm buildings and houses has gone up, but I suggest quite seriously that the increase in rents is considerably more than the increase which has taken place in the cost of repairs. Let me follow it out. Take, for instance, the prices paid for agricultural land. Does anyone suggest to-day that the interest paid on the price of agricultural land is anything like a fair agricultural rent? I am sure that will not be suggested.

Major STEEL: Will the hon. Member excuse me again—

Mr. SPEAKER: The time is limited, and two more speakers are to follow. We rnust not take up time with interruptions.

Mr. DAVIES: I have said that rents have gone up, and I say more. One of the things which is hindering good farming in this country is that the tenant has no security of tenure. What happened, of course, was that the House thought that, by passing a Bill providing for compensation for disturbance,. the tenant could not be interfered with; but the very fact that all these sales have taken place, the very fact that all these purchasers have paid the prices that they have paid for their farms, and taken the risk of claiming compensation for disturbance, proves that it has been ineffective. Let me make one other point with regard to the present position. This
House has spent a good deal of time, and the Government have spent a good deal of money, on small holdings. The one panacea of the Tory party used to be that we were to have small holdings. The fact is that since 1902, when small holdings were established, there has been a reduction of no less than 38,000 in their number. In the last two years there was a reduction of no less than 3,000 in the number of agricultural holdings in this country, and the unfortunate thing is that that reduction is taking place in the holdings under 20 acres, with the result that there has been a reduction of no less than 11,000 in the number of people employed on agricultural land during the last two years.
The question has been asked, what is the policy of the Liberal party? I will tell the hon. Member who asked that question in two minutes. In the first place, we mean to give to the farmer security of tenure, so that he cannot be interfered with, either by the sale of the land by the landowner or by the caprice of the agent on account it may be of some political consideration. Hon. Members on the other side are very fond of going about the country and telling the farmers that under the Liberal policy they will be compulsorily deprived of their farms, at prices to be fixed by arbitration, and that the land will pass under the control of an official. [ Interruption.] I think I am not doing hon. Members an injustice in saying that. Is not the argument put forward on the platform this, that the Liberal policy will be compulsory purchase of the land, at a price to be fixed by arbitration, and that the land will be controlled by officials?
I would remind the House of one fact, of which hon. Members on the other side are apparently ignorant or forgetful. The Tory party themselves have extended the Small Holdings Act to farms of £100 annual value. That comprises four-fifths of the farms in this country, and what does it mean? It means that the Tory Government, have vested in the county councils of this country the power to take any farm that they like, of not more than £100 annual value, compulsorily. They may have the price fixed by arbitration, and the farm will immediately pass under the control of the officials of the county council. If these are the
powers under the present Act, which the Tory Government themselves have extended, why are we blamed? It will not, in fact, be necessary to give us these powers because the powers already exist.
There is one other question which is equally important to the farmer, and that is the question of credit. I am not very much concerned at the moment about long credit for farmers who have bought their farms, but the unfortunate part of the farmer's position is that he cannot get any credit for the usual business of his industry. He cannot borrow money like the shopkeeper or the owner of a factory; his turnover does not justify an overdraft He therefore is buying on credit things for which he ought to be paying cash, with the result that ultimately the interest appears in the price of his produce. In America, that assistance has been extended to the farmer. I think I have pointed out before in this House that, when the hog market was breaking in America some years ago, the Government of the United States came in and advanced many millions to the farmers in order to help to accommodate them during that depression in the trade. This House has given guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act to several industries, and has undoubtedly helped trade to that extent. I suggest that, if hon. Members are sincere, as I have no doubt they are, in their desire to help agriculture, they should press the Minister of Agriculture to give to the farming industry the advantages of the guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act that have been so helpful in other directions. If that were done, I have no doubt whatever that it would go very far to help the farmer to tide over his present difficulty. Behind all these things, however, there is one thing which must be provided for if the farmer is to put his heart and soul and money into the land. He must be secured by law, not merely in his tenancy, but in the value of his improvements, and in the fact that he and not the landowner will reap the benefit.

7.0 p.m

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: When the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) opened the Debate, it seemed to me that he was about to propose a serious Vote of Censure on the Government, so many
were the complaints he made and the proposals that followed, but I begin to wonder whether we are not, after all, only witnessing a demonstration to show that some independence is left in the back benchers opposite and that the crack of the Minister's whip cannot be always successful, because in nearly all the proposals the Mover and Seconder have made there is safety in the fact that they know quite well that the Government will not accept them. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) gave a very interesting sketch of the situation, which is indeed a very difficult one in East Anglia, and I feel that such a sketch as he gave is of very great value, because he is one of the working landowners who take it as a serious business, who farm themselves and are active on the land—exactly the type of landowner who, if he were a great deal more prevalent, would have avoided the main problems which have arisen in our agriculture. Therefore, we all attended with the greatest attention to what he said and, though I differ from his opinions, his sketch of the situation is of very great value. At one point he seemed to me to be supporting Labour policy in this way. He showed in a more graphic way than I have ever seen it described the extraordinary risk attaching to the operation of marketing and growing a cereal crop, but surely it is not his party but my party which put forward a proposal attempting to meet that difficulty and, if I am not mistaken, Lord Ernle himself said in regard to that, which is the crucial thing for British agriculture, that no party had made a proposal except the Labour party.
We have had the Government's plan in the last three years for the restoration of agriculture to which we were told to look forward. We have had, for instance, the Smallholdings Bill and the Insects Bill, we are dealing with the Rabbits Bill and to-night we have had the proposals which hon. Members who support the Minister would like to see. That is not, as I take it, a debate to put forward the general policies of parties. It is really a debate about the relief of rates, and there is serious hope that the Minister will yield on the point, but it strikes me as a about Protection. I suppose all those strange thing that it is not a debate
who have spoken on the Conservative side, if not avowedly Protectionists, would keenly welcome Protectionist action. Why are they afraid to say so? Is it not time that another move should be made to get the Conservative leaders to take up Protection? I am not sure that it might not go down very well, a great deal better perhaps than it did three years ago. Surely there is something very extraordinary about a politician saying, "I advocate, and I believe from the bottom of my heart in a certain plan as the only means of salvation." They go to the electors and say, "I think that is the only thing that will save you but I do not think you will vote for it and I am not going to propose it." It seems extraordinarily like the candidate who expounded his views to a selection committee and then said, "Gentlemen, these are my views. If you do not like them they can be altered." Why not try again? Why not have more courage? If that is what the country needs, tell it so and wait till the country agrees.
But meanwhile you have your leaders to deal with, and we are given the more feasible proposal of rate relief—insure against losing the farmers' vote by another dole in rates. I feel that there is about that a very extraordinary want of originality. It is not the second but the third time we have had a rate relief proposal. It has been tried and has not succeeded. In 1923 the Minister of Health said:
The purpose of the Bill is to give assistance to agriculture. … It is in a desperate condition. Profits in many cases have vanisher altogether. … Unless something be done to assist the industry, it is clear that much land which is now arable must go out of cultivation altogether or else go down to grass."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1923; col. 1787, Vol. 164.]
He assured them that it was going to maintain, or improve, arable land, and we know the sequel. There has been a huge reduction, which we all regret, in the arable area, and if any dole was to prove a means of stemming the reduction in the arable area, surely the extra £4,000,000 odd which has been given since then would have had some effect, but it has not had that effect, and to that extent everyone must agree that it has failed.
Then my hon. Friend has shown that one of the main arguments against rate
relief is that it goes to the owners. I think the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Drewe) was inclined to dispute that, but I doubt whether he will dispute the authority of Sir Trustram Eve, who said:
The incidence of rates in the case of agricultural land is in the long run on the owners, but of a total gross annual value of the property the occupier pays away so much to the owner in rent and so much direct to the rate collector in rates. The higher the cheque for rates the lower the cheque for rent.
But from his point of view a higher authority still, Lord Chaplin, said much the same, and the very Minister who introduced the Bill in 1923 said:
I do no mind admitting that there will be a distant and indirect advantage to the landowner.
It is a question of degree how much is the advantage to the landowner, but the Minister said that, and his opinion is still more convincing than even that of Lord Chaplin. I am not very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is absent to-night and is not joining in the demand for a further relief of rates, because his policy has been a conspicuous failure. If it is so, is it really a sound proposal and is it fair to the community that you should make grants of any kind which go, not to the industry but to the owner of the land, even if the advantage to them is not complete for some considerable time? There is, of course, the attraction of immediate help to present tenants, and help to existing occupying owners, and it is no doubt a great convenience that the landlords also, as occupying owners, will score in the long run. I wonder whether we are going to see from the Minister an interesting sequel to what he is reported to have said the other day, that the Government might find a way of decreasing still further the burden imposed by local taxation. Perhaps we are on the eve of something very interesting.
When we are dealing with the burdens on agriculture we should take a review of what those burdens are. If you look at them in proportion, rating is a burden to a certain extent. I have endeavoured to elaborate on other occasions the burdens involved in want of equipment, and my hon. Friends below the Gangway have alluded to lack of equipment. It follows from our present system of
ownership, which is a very great burden on agriculture not removable by any proposals of the Conservative party. But is there not another burden, which is perhaps the greatest of all, which we ought to bear in mind, and that is the burden involved in our inefficient marketing? That cannot be too much elaborated. I think the point is really best expressed in the wording of the Labour party plan, where it says:
When a system of land administration which will encourage and support improved methods of production and cultivation has been brought in, the price received by the cultivator for his produce will still be by far the most important factor in determining whether the industry is prosperous or the reverse, and, in determining the prices actually received by the farmer, the methods of marketing and distribution are of primary importance.
Have the Movers of this Motion explored the possibility of the enormous saving that would be involved in an improvement of our marketing methods? Do they agree with the hon. Member for South Oxfordshire and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who spoke the other night on marketing, who are enthusiasts for improvement in that direction? There is where the greatest burden lies upon the profits of a farmer. The marketing branch of the Ministry are working away and studying our existing marketing conditions. The institution of that branch was by far the most important operation in which I engaged when I was at the Ministry. It followed on the Report of the Linlithgow Committee, which gave an impressive array of arguments. If we want means of increasing profits, there is where the main opportunity lies. We import something like £400,000,000 a year. We could find a market probably, with better organisation as well as better land tenure, leading to better production, for another £100,000,000 of our production, which is now £225,000,000 a year. That is the lesson of every one of these orange books displaying the condition of our agricultural marketing. Great organisation has to be faced, but other countries have faced it, and it is surely not beyond the wit of the farmers to grapple with the situation. It is not Continental people, it is we who are the great example of America. Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians are the most conspicuous in modern marketing.
The effect of Protection and rate relief would be incredibly small compared with the benefit which would be involved in the adoption of modern methods of marketing.
I had intended to give an illustration of my point in a detailed manner from the case of milk. It can easily be shown that gigantic savings can be made in the case of milk by quite feasible changes in marketing. If anyone will study the Journal of the Ministry, he will see extraordinarily interesting cases given in connection with the Minister's plan of a milk publicity campaign locally Where, by promoting the consumption of milk in schools, a tremendous stimulus has been given not only to the consumption of milk in schools, not only to the general consumption of milk but to the health of children in the schools. By this kind of improved marketing you would thus not only be increasing consumption and increasing the farmers' trade, but you would be having a reproductive outlay, because you would be improving the health of the population. The same thing applies to poultry, fruit and potatoes. It is because rate relief itself is useless, ineffective, extravagant and unjust to the community that we must oppose this Motion.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Not the least interesting part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the persuasive appeal which he made to hon. Members on this side of the House to adopt a policy of agricultural Protection. We have read the remarks of his leader about the bad patch through which the party opposite is now going. I can imagine how popular a policy of dear food would be among the Members opposite. We are much indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) for having afforded us the opportunity of a review—all too brief in this short Debate—of the present position of agriculture. We have had speakers from various areas all agreeing in a very gloomy account. They have described to us the interests of different parts of agriculture, and, naturally, have put forward different remedies. The Mover said that he was of opinion that the soundest method was one of reducing burdens, and in that we
on this side of the House all agree. But he also brought forward various partial remedies which have been pressed upon him by his constituents. We have examined all those remedies. Some of them we believe to be illusory. Some we believe to be politically impossible, if one thinks out their results. Some of them—and the most effective—would cost a good deal of money. Unfortunately our resources are limited. We shall not hesitate, when the time comes, to ask Parliament to help agriculture to the extent of our means with financial assistance, but we shall not be able to get a really effective result if we spend our limited resources on such partial remedies, and we must concentrate on some course that is going to help the whole of agriculture.
I am very glad to be allowed to say a word or two on some of the partial remedies mentioned this afternoon, because we generally have debates on administration, and do not have a chance of discussing these wider proposals. It was suggested by my hon. Friend that we should provide that the miller should have a certain proportion of British wheat in his grist. There is great administrative difficulty about that. If you were to lay down a uniform proportion of this British wheat ingredient, you would have a great deal of unnecessary transport. The port mills may use about 5 per cent., while the country mills may use up to 50 per cent. It means a great increase in the cost of production if you have to transport your British wheat to the port mills and extra imported wheat to country mills in order to get a uniform grist of that kind. Then, also, millers blend their soft British and hard foreign wheats in certain proportions to meet the public taste. It is going to be very unpopular to force a particular type of loaf upon the consumer. It might be possible if the British farmer were to grow more hard wheat, but it would be very difficult to do it at the present time. The overwhelming argument for this proposal is that there should be a better demand for British wheat so that a better price would be paid. You can do that only by fixing a high proportion of British wheat in the grist. If you fixed a low proportion, you make no difference. if you fix a high proportion, you are going to put the tremendous weapon of monopoly in the hands of the farmer.
You enable the farmer to say to the miller, "You have got to pay the price I ask, or you must break the law." I do not think the community would allow such a power to be put in the hands of one section of the community to be used, if it is to be effective at all, for increasing the price of food.
Another proposal was that we should take artificial means to decrease the price of millers' offials, and we were asked if it was the case that millers were selling offals to the foreigner more cheaply than in this country. In the summer, there is very little demand for offals in this country, and the coarser kinds, bran and pollards, which do not keep well, are sent abroad on large contracts. Most of it, I believe, goes to Denmark, and it may be that sometimes the farmer who buys small quantities retail pays more for his purchase than the foreigner who has contracted ahead for the future and for a definite date. There is a reference in the Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices to this particular subject. They said there that, if there was any artificial interference with the sale of bran so that it could not be freely sold, inevitably the loss on bran would be made up by the millers by an increase in the charge which they made on flour. My hon. Friend rejected a suggestion that we should interfere with imports of flour from foreign countries, but he was more inclined to support the idea that we might do something to prevent the export of offals. If we did so, quite apart from the danger of increasing the price of flour, it is doubtful if it would be effective in cheapening the price. We now import a very large amount of offals, 211,000 tons a year. It is true we export 57,000 tons, but we had a net import of 154,000 tons last year. If you were artificially to prevent export, it is doubtful if you would affect the price.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that the farmers in many instances have got to pay as much for the offal they buy for their cattle as for the wheat which they produce?

Mr. GUINNESS: I agree we all want cheaper offal, but I am dealing with the particular proposal as to how it is to be done, and we have very little time to discuss it. The point is that, if you are going artificially to prevent exports, it is
certain you will not be able to maintain your present imports unless you keep up the price. You cannot both lower prices and keep your imports, and the natural result of any attempt to lower the price by this artificial means would be that the markets from which we should be withholding our offals, like Denmark, for instance, would get offals which would be diverted from us, because they would be prepared to pay the price. I do not say it would have no effect, but I think the great effect which is expected in some quarters would prove to be unfulfilled.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) said that we ought to do something for arable agriculture, and he suggested that some of us were rather remiss in this matter, because we did not appreciate the danger in time of war. The whole point of the argument which has been used in that connection is that there is a limit to what it is worth your while to pay for an increased acreage. Our resources are limited, and we were told when we discussed this matter two years ago that none of those things which we could do would restore anything like the acreage under arable crops which we achieved during the War. Even if we had achieved that amount, which we were told by the farmers we could not achieve, it would mean only an extra 10 days' supply. That argument was not used because we were not anxious to get the maximum production of wheat, but it was used in connection with a particular very costly proposal of an arable subsidy. My hon. and. gallant Friend suggests this afternoon—though he did not discuss it in detail—the system of wheat insurance. Unfortunately, that wheat insurance proposal, which we carefully examined, could not possibly be worked without a subsidy, and that subsidy is beyond our financial resources, and contrary to our considered policy of not spending what we have to spend in helping only one side of the industry.
Then he dwelt upon malting barley. I know our White Paper has not convinced him, but the position is that it is very difficult to find a solution which would not cause much more inconvenience than it is worth. The problem
is that the farmer wishes to ensure that he shall have the cheapest form of barley as a raw material to feed his stock, and he wants only to tax malting barley. A lot of the malting barley is, however, indistinguishable from feeding barley, and you cannot prevent that feeding barley which the farmer wants to come in cheaply from being diverted to the malthouse unless you have a very cumbersome system of certification. The whole question is whether it is worth while. It is a very old story to try to alter the methods of the British brewer. It was attempted by the proposals brought forward in the Pure Beer Bill. I hope hon. Members will read the Debates upon that subject in 1902, because they are very apt to this question of malting barley. The late Lord Moulton, then a very eminent learned Member, by his speech did much to finish that agitation. He showed that modern ales are brewed with special regard to a due proportion between the nitrogenous ingredients and the starchy ingredients. Roughly speaking, he said the starch gives you the alcohol and the nitrogen gives you the flavour, but under the complicated chemical processes which take place, certain chemical products are developed which turn the beer bad if there is an excess of nitrogen. Unfortunately, British barley has an excess of nitrogen and the sun-ripened barley, the most costly barley, is used because mixed with this nitrogenous barley it gives an excess of starch in proportion. By mixing either this sun-ripened barley with its high starchy content, or rice or maize or sugar in some form or other with the British barley of lower starch content, the brewer is able to use a larger proportion of British barley and produce the required result.
I have had a great deal of evidence to the same effect, that the brewers would not find it possible to abandon those methods which on scientific advice they had adopted, and that they could not go back to the heavy cloudy beers to which the consumer is no longer accustomed, and that any tax imposed would be paid by them rather than change their method. If they continued their present method, the result of the tax would be disappointing to the barley grower. On the whole we feel that we are not justified in inflicting great inconvenience and cost for so very little probable result to
those who are asking for the duty. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that a tax should be put on foreign seed. That would be a case of taxing raw material, because though perhaps in his part of Essex they may be very much interested in the production of seed, in the other parts of the country, they attach importance to being able to buy foreign seed. And he is aware, of course, that in the case of many garden seeds, certain species can only satisfactorily be produced abroad.
The suggestion was made that we should have an embargo or an import duty on foreign condensed skimmed milk. I think it is very regrettable that there is so much of this product consumed in this country, but the trouble is we cannot make out a case that it is really unhealthy. I wish we could. We have to recognise that it is a very popular form of food with the poorer classes of the community. The equivalent of 207,000,000 one-lb. tins of this condensed skimmed milk is now consumed in this country and that popularity is a measure of the outcry that would be caused if we interfered with its consumption by the people who want it. Unless there were a case on the grounds of health, which has not hitherto been established, it would clearly be inconsistent with our pledges not to tax food.
I have not time to deal with all the other proposals which have been made, but I do not think the Debate has produced any practical remedies beyond those which we propose to pursue. The Amendment of the Labour party speaks of obtaining a fair return for the farmer, but we believe that the fair return would only be hindered by that system of nationalisation which they propose. The farmer is not worried nowadays by insecurity of tenure. The landlord is more often worried in the Eastern Counties in finding a tenant. The old system of tenure under which the tenant was able to get cheap fixed capital from his landlord was undoubtedly the most satisfactory method that could be found. I agree with the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ellis Davies) that many tenants have been forced into unwilling ownership by heavy taxation and so forth, and the figures are even more startling than he mentioned. Last year we took special pains to get full
information, and we found that 147,000 holdings were cultivated by owner-occupiers, that is, 36 per cent. of the total number in the country, and that they account for 9,250,000 acres of the country, that is, 30 per cent. of our total area under crops and grass including rough grazing.
We do not believe that the remedy is to be found in State ownership, but in providing capital on the easiest possible terms to the new owners. The proposal of the Labour party foreshadows control. We believe that we should have the least possible interference, and that unnecessary interference is fatal to efficiency. We are doing all we can in the terms of this Motion to encourage co-operative buying and marketing. We should like the stabilisation of prices if we could find a way, but the economic, political and administrative difficulties in the way of a system of State purchasing are insuperable. An Import Board would make no fewer mistakes than private enterprise, but those of the State would be vastly more disastrous. When they speculated favourably and the world prices at the time proved to be high, the farmers certainly would not benefit by their satisfactory speculation in futures, because their price under the scheme would be dependent on the lower price that had been arranged in advance. Whenever the Board had bought unfavourably when the world prices at the time turned out to be lower, it would be very doubtful whether the farmer would be paid more than the world prices. It is quite certain that the consumer would refuse to be charged more for his food than the current prices of the world, and it is easy to see what disastrous results would fall on the Exchequer.
If we cannot see any way to help the farmer by stabilisation at present, we are doing much by our administrative and legislative efforts to help him in marketing and in getting profits which are now escaping him, and we hope to go still further very shortly and to bring in a Bill, to help him by grading to regain a better share, in his own market at the expense of the foreigner. Of course, the farmers would like us to do very much more, and, naturally, when a man is up against heavy losses, he does want cash assistance. It is, however, admitted by all parties that protection or cash subsidies
are out of the question. It is agreed that we cannot cure the industry under present political conditions by transfusion of blood and by raising the farmers' receipts at the expense of other industries, taxpayers or consumers. We may, however, help on the costs side by re-adjusting between one interest and another where inequitable burdens are now imposed.
I was very interested in what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said about the relief of rates, and his opinion that any such step would be a form of bribery and corruption. I entirely disagree with him. We are examining the system of local taxation in the interest not only of farmers but of all producers, because we believe that there is a strong case for further relief for easing the burden of

taxation for general and local services, and also for further assistance out of the Road Fund. The difficulty is money, and we must ensure, of course, that in helping one section of the ratepayers we are not imposing new and unfair burdens on the rest. Obviously, I cannot say at this stage whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to find the financial means to enable us to give the relief which we should like, but I am sure that any resources which may be found available will be more satisfactorily devoted to helping all agriculturists, all sides of the industry, rather than to partial remedies which are pressed upon us for the benefit of special types of production.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 113.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[7.27 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Sir S.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Christie, J. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W. Derby)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, G. C.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Apsley, Lord
Cope, Major William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Atkinson, C.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hamilton, Sir George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Beckett, Sir Garvase (Leeds, N.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hanbury, C


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bennett, A. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harland, A.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Harney, E. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset.Yeovil)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Drewe, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Duckworth, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Edge, Sir William
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Briant, Frank
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ellis, R.G.
Hills, Major John Waller


Brittain, Sir Harry
England, Colonel A.
Hilton, Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univsr.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Buchan, John
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fenby, T. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermoy, Lord
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bullock, Captain M.
Finburgh, S.
Hudson, R. S.(Cumberiand, Whiteh'n)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Burman, J. B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Huntingfield, Lord


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Campbell, E. T.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Hurst, Gerald B.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gates, Percy
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cassels, J. D.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamliton
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff, Sir Park
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Jephcott, A. R


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grace, John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
KIdd, J. (Linlithgow)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Nuttail, Ellis
Storry-Deans, R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Oakley, T.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lamb, J. Q.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Strauss, E. A.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Owen, Major G.
Templeton, W. P.


Loder, J. de V.
Penny, Frederick George
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Long, Major Eric
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Looker, Herbert William
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Raine, Sir Walter
Tomlinson, R. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramsden, E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maclntyre, Ian
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


McLean, Major A.
Remnant, Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waddington, R.


Macquisten, F. A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ropner, Major L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Malone, Major P. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Dr. T.


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Merriman, F. B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savory, S. S.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)
Withers, John James


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Morris, R. H.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wragg, Herbert


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Sir Alexander



Newton, Sir D. G. C, (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Lieut-Colonel Acland Troyle and




Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Clowes, S.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H- (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Neill (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. T. Williams und Mr. Riley.


Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. MARCH: May I ask what will happen in regard to the other Amendments in connection with this matter?

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL (by Order).

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [28th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words,, "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Lamb.]

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I suppose there have been few Private Bills in regard to which so many briefs on either side have been circulated to Members of Parliament. I want to-night to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in not dealing with the points with which anyone who has studied this question must be familiar, and which are incorporated in the briefs which we have read with quite fatiguing reiteration. The case against the Bill was put last night by the hon. Member for Derbyshire Southern (Sir J. Grant). I happened to be sitting between him and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), a director of a railway, and from the evidences of his desire to speak I feel perfectly confident that, later on, the hon. Member for Ripon will answer every point put.

Major HILLS: I am not a director.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: At any rate, my hon. and gallant Friend is familiar with the railway case. I am too young ever to have been actually a follower of the red flag. Hon. Members will realise that in 1896 Parliament legislated for the first time against the red flag. We then got rid of the rule that a red flag had to be carried before a
motor car. I have done my best to promote motor transport from that time up to now, and it is with a considerable amount of regret that I find myself to-night, after a great deal of consideration, coming down on the side of the railways. May I, in the first place, say a few words to the directors of railways? We generally start life by wishing to be an engine driver on the railway and we end by wishing to be a director of a railway. I cannot help saying this to the railway directors, that if they had had real foresight in this matter, they would have got these powers without any Debate at all 20 years ago. If they had had any vision at all they would have done that. To-night they are simply bolting the door when the horse has been stolen.
I find myself in a very difficult position, because I hold two rather contrary views on this transport question. First of all, I believe that if you are going to give powers to a corporation or other body to trade in transport, you ought to allow them to choose the method by which they trade. You should allow them to change from one system to another if they think it the more economical to do so; and you ought to give them the full range of every means at their disposal. I have been perfectly consistent in this, because I have advocated it time and again, that when you give to municipalities the power to trade in transport by means of trams, you ought certainly to give them powers to trade in omnibuses. Nothing has been so bad for the traffic of London than the fact that the London County Council can only trade in trams. They have viewed everything through tramway spectacles; they have congested parts of London which would never have been congested if they had been allowed to trade in transport, with all the various economic systems fully at their disposal. The same thing prevails in the provinces. We have difficulties now where the traffic authorities are the actual trading corporation in trams. How can they really look at any proposition from the proper point of view, when rivals can come along with whom they cannot compete. It is a perfectly impossible position.
Further, I find myself in this contrary position because I am not a believer in free competition in transport. That is a very serious thing to say on this side of
the House. The sacred idea, of free competition is almost one of the tenets of the Conservative party, but free competition in transport leads to very grave difficulties. I would point out the position of London as an illustration. I have spoken with a certain amount of disrespect of directors of railway companies, but there is one gentleman whom I look upon as quite an inspired director, and that is Lord Ashfield. By his enemies, and he has many, he is looked upon as lord of the underworld, by which they mean that he is lord of the Underground. Lord Ashfield had the vision to see that the competition between omnibuses and tubes was not going to be for the benefit of London, and during the War he got power to pool his resources. It is very interesting to see exactly what happened. At the beginning, the tubes saved the omnibuses; they paid out of the general pool towards the omnibuses, and kept them alive. When the situation changed and the omnibuses gave more facilities and more and more came upon the roads, finally, out of the pool, the omnibuses saved the tubes, and to-day the omnibuses pay towards the upkeep of the tubes no less than £500,000 a year. I do not think people realise that if it were not for that pool and the fact that the omnibuses are paying for the tubes, there would not be a tube running in London to-day. That would be the result of free competition upon our roads.
If the House passes these Bills tonight, it means that we are going to launch a very big transport war. Do not make any mistake about that. On the passing of these Bills, a big transport war will start. Is that war going to be finally for the benefit of the community? That is what we have to consider. Roughly, the case is this, that the railways find themselves in an impossible position. They cannot compete freely with hauliers upon the roads, and every single job of carrying that is taken off the railways means that the railways, automatically, have to increase their charges. It seems to me perfectly preposterous that a firm like Lyons who, for economic reasons, are taking their goods from Birmingham to London by road should by that act increase the price of coal in this country; but that is exactly what is happening owing to the provisions of the Railways Act. You have the Railway
Rates Tribunal, which fixes the standard rates, and they automatically go up the more the traffic goes on to the roads. Railways are treated in a most unfair way from that point of view. On the other hand, the hauliers of this country are naturally afraid of the big railway companies and their resources and, although we may be assured later in the Debate that it is not true—there will be a rate war, an acute rate war—it may be that they will be absorbed and bought up by the big railway companies. If that should ever happen then there is little chance that we shall get low rates on the roads.
I naturally ask what is the remedy; and I feel inclined to point to the effects of what was a very unpopular Act passed by the Labour Government but supported by hon. Members on this side—the London Traffic Act. That was an Act passed to regulate certain conditions of transport in London. It gave arbitrary powers to the Minister, but, on the whole, I think it has been of very great value to the country. It brought in a very curious piece of legislation, which was that you could limit certain forms of transport or prohibit other lines of transport having regard to the existence of alternative facilities. The Act only applies to-day to London, the area around London, and it does nothing to stop people running omnibuses from outside into London providing that they do not take up fares in the London area. We see every day these omnibuses running from places like Bournemouth and Maidstone, from my own constituency, into London, and there is no restriction on them at all. The Minister has no power to stop them coming in on any road whatsoever. They could flood the whole country and disorganise our London traffic, and it seems to me that in the near future Parliament will have to give very serious attention to the introduction of a Bill making a traffic Act for the whole of England. The position to-day is extremely difficult, with all the local authorities trading organisations on their own, and no method by which you can co-ordinate traffic-running facilities from one district and another.
I have listened to nearly the whole of this Debate and the only argument which really weighs with me seriously against this Bill is the fact that the Prime Minister has told us that he proposes
to appoint an inquiry on the transport problem; and the demand that this Bill should be postponed until that inquiry has taken place has, I admit, a certain amount of force. I cannot help saying, however, to the Minister who is responsible for the inquiry that I hope he realises what a tremendous business it will be. An inquiry into the whole traffic conditions and transport facilities in this country is a monumental task, and I do not think one is justified in putting back a Private Bill until such an investigation is over. It may take a year. I would ask the Minister in charge of the Transport Bill whether he is wise to introduce his own Bill until he has had his inquiry into transport generally. It may well be that after that inquiry his Bill will be found to be wanting in several respects.
One other word in connection with this matter. I cannot believe that an inquiry into the transport and traffic facilities can ever really be thorough unless the whole system of taxation is investigated at the same time. The profit and loss of a haulier company largely depends on what taxes it pays, and an inquiry of that sort must go into the question as to whether it is right for a private car to pay more for road damage than it actually does at the moment, or for a public vehicle to pay less than it does at the moment. All these things will have to be gone into. It is not the time to debate this question, but I hold strong views on the question of taxation. I want to warn the Minister of Transport what a monumental task he is undertaking in investigating the whole transport system of the country. It is so big that I do not think it is fair to deny by postponement the railway companies the facilities for which they ask. That would be very unfair, but I would like to say to the railway companies that if in later years the Government of the day, whatever it is, has to make a Traffic Act they should not in the meanwhile build up a goodwill against the Government which the taxpayer should ever have to pay for. Under these circumstances I shall accept this Bill and vote for it.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: The House has listened to a most interesting and informative speech, and I am inclined to agree with nine-tenths of the conclusions at which the hon. Member for Rochester
(Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) arrived. He, I understand, is going to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill now under discussion. I propose, largely on the ground he has covered, to vote against the Bill. No argument, in my opinion, has been more compelling in this respect than his annoucement that he was not in favour of our highways being a field of free competition amongst transport services. I wonder exactly what he meant when he predicted that the passage of this and other Bills meant an inevitable big transport war. That will be a competitive war. He suggested that after a period of intense competition we should reap some final blessing, but I am wondering now exactly what form that ultimate blessing will take. Is it to take the form of a unified co-ordinated nationalised system of inland transport? If I believed it did I might put aside the whole of my objections to the Bill and bear the troubles of this competitive war, which is predicted, in order to reap that final reward. I cannot believe, however, that the situation is quite so easily overcome.
I propose to look at these railway bills as they are drafted and I want to express my disappointment that the Vote which will be taken to-night will be very seriously prejudiced—a feeling shared, I am sure, by hon. Members in all parts of the House—by the fact that whatever we may think of the Bills as they now stand there is a possibility, a probability, that in Committee they will be so changed that every conceivable objection to them in their present form will be removed. I ask the House to look at the Bills as they stand and in the few hours before the Vote is taken to carefully watch what the promoters will say in regard to the possibility of Amendments and concessions before the Bills are allowed to pass through Committee. The promoters of these Bills up to now have been perfectly frank in their avowal of their intentions. It is perfectly right to say that in this matter the consideration of the shareholders' interest is what moves them from beginning to end. That is how I interpret the terms of this Bill. I shall be surprised if any promoter of the Bill will try to convince us that at any time the railway companies have been in the position of philanthropists. They have never been in that position. They have been profit making concerns from their origin, a perfectly logical position.
In this matter the railway companies are moved not by any demand on the part of the people for the provisions of these Bills but in defence of the shareholders' interests, with no consideration at all as to how far the demands they put forward are going to meet the convenience of the public or satisfy an important national interest. I am entitled to assume that they represent the railway companies' minimum demands. The first question is: What is the urgency of this matter to-day? We are asked to believe that the finances of the railway companies are in such a state that the passage of these Bills is absolutely essential, is a matter of the extremist urgency. Let us remember what passed in the House yesterday. We were promised by the Government an immediate inquiry into the whole matter of inland transport subject, of course, to the exigencies of public business.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Prime Minister said that in connection with the Road Traffic Bill. He did not say anything like that about the inquiry.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. KENNEDY: I stand corrected. He promised us the Road Traffic Bill, subject to the exigencies of public business. He promised us an inquiry into the matter of inland transport, and the admitted need for co-ordination and regulation of the whole question. That inquiry is to take place without undue delay. Some little time must take place before the scope of the inquiry and the machinery can be determined. I think the Prime Minister might have been a little more definite, but the point I want to make is why, pending that inquiry, if it takes place immediately, should consideration of these Bills not be deferred? The whole matter of transport to-day is a difficult and complicated problem. There are varied interests. There are the interests of local authorities, of private contractors and the general over-riding national interest. Now, into this complicated problem we are to introduce a new ingredient of tremendous importance. We are asked to give railway companies powers that will give them in my opinion a position of preference and privilege.
In my opinion in this matter nothing is lost by delay. The difficulties facing
the inquiry will be intensified by proceeding with the Bills, and
if the companies' claims are as legitimate as they would have us believe, surely they can afford to await this inquiry. If it is only a question of fair play, they can well afford to wait. There are various interests, and complicated interests, to be considered. The House will agree that from the point of view of the inquiry delay in the promotion of the Bills would be an incentive to those in charge of the inquiry to proceed with the greatest expedition possible to a conclusion of the inquiry, in order that the whole situation may be reviewed without prejudice. What is it that the companies are asking? I have said that the Bills contain their minimum demands. The companies are asking now for the same statutory powers on the public highways as they enjoy on the railways. They are asking for powers "to levy such reasonable rates and fares for the conveyance of traffic" as they think fit, subject, of course, to the review of the Railway Rates Tribunal.
They are asking further—this is very significant—for permission to come to working agreements with local authorities, and indeed with all other road transport services. They are seeking powers to establish road services as subsidiary services to their rail services. They ask the House to say on Second Reading that it is expedient that the companies shall have permission to apply their general funds and finances for the general purposes of the Bill. That is stated explicitly and honestly and fairly in the Bill. I would like to suggest that in this matter we should try to rise above the level of mere shareholders' interests. The main provisions of the Bill, which I have defined, are from beginning to end capable of one interpretation, and one interpretation only, and that is that the railway companies are moved from beginning to end by consideration of the pocket interests of the railway shareholders.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: What about wages?

Mr. KENNEDY: I shall refer to that subject later. Meantime I repeat that this is not really a shareholders' matter. It is not even a railway
workers' matter. It is a public Measure, a matter of supreme national importance. It is not a question of balancing the interests of the shareholders and of the private contractors and profit makers who are now on the roads. It is a national matter. What have the promoters said up to now in defence of their claim? They say they want fair play with other users of the public roads. I have been long enough in this House to remember occasions when other transport services' interests have been debated. I recall occasions when the House was engaged in discussing local authorities' enabling Bills. I have seen corporations promoting municipal transport enterprises. I have never seen those who are so zealous in the cause of fair play now stand up to demand fair play for those other transport services. As a matter of fact, this cry of fair play for the railways is the sheerest pretence, as is their claim that they should have the free use of the roads. They have the free use of the roads to-day as railways for the collection and transport of goods and passengers to be carried by rail. That is the legitimate and statutory function of our railway companies.
The railway companies complain that they are to-day subsidising their competitors. They complain—the complaint comes from a strange quarter—that those on this side should primarily regard this as a question of cheap labour as against the well paid labour on the railway systems. For a minute let me look at these pretences, for I cannot call them anything else. What is there in this demand for fair play for the railway companies? I see in them a statutory endowment of inefficiency. That is what they amount to. The railway companies in the changed circumstances of the day will have to put their house in order. When I think of how they have used their powers in the past, I am not impressed by the complaints that they make to-day of unfair competition. What is this complaint about the excessive strain on their resources through the burden of rates? The fact of the matter is, and no defender of these Bills can deny it, that in the payment of rates the companies to-day are in a more favourable position than that of any other comparable industry in
the country. That is true. The companies tell us of the aggregate amount of rates they pay. We want to look at the matter, not in the light of the aggregate amount of rates paid as compared with the total amount paid by some other industries; we have to think of the aggregate amount of capital involved, and we have to ask ourselves also how much of these rates paid by the companies are highway rates. The highway rate is the only rate of importance in this business.
I challenge contradiction of the statement that the railway companies to-day do not pay more than £1,500,000 in highway rates. Is that statement disputed? That £1,500,000 I seek to interpret in terms of burden on our railways as a carrying industry. I find that that terrible burden of local rates works out at something like one-fortieth of a penny per ton-mile on all goods carried on our railway system. I have only to say that for the House to see how hollow is the pretence that the railways are suffering from any burden of local rates. Then I come to the question of fair play again. Great play has been made of this sentimental appeal. The companies are asking for free use of the roads with other carriers of goods in road transport. Sir Josiah Stamp, speaking for the railway companies at Leeds, made a statement of interest. I give the House quotations from speeches deliberately made in order that the House may see the real railway point of view. Sir Josiah Stamp said:
We desire to retain for the railways all traffic that ought economically to be upon them.
That is a nice sentence. See how his colleague. Mr. Dickinson, of Leeds, interprets that statement. He said:
From the point of view of the community as a whole the right policy to be pursued is some kind of modus vivendi between the railway services and road transport, but in such co-operation and co-ordination the railway must be the dominant partner and have chief consideration.

Major HILLS: May I ask the name of the author of that quotation?

Mr. KENNEDY: Mr. Dickinson. When I sit down I will give the hon. and gallant Member full particulars—not merely the statement I have quoted, but a more extensive statement. Mr. Dickinson is an authority entitled to speak on railway matters.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Who is he?

Mr. KENNEDY: My right hon. Friend knows quite well.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know.

Mr. KENNEDY: I will give the information later.

Major HILLS: On a point of Order. If a quotation is made from a speech delivered outside this House, is not the House entitled to know the name of the speaker?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Gentleman has given the name.

Mr. KENNEDY: I have said that the speech was by Mr. Dickinson, of Leeds, and I have offered to give the hon. and gallant Member not merely the quotation I have read but an extended statement which the hon. and gallant Member can use in this Debate if he thinks it profitable to do so. Meantime I pass on to deal briefly with the question of the companies having free access to the roads for the collection and delivery of railway borne traffic. The companies have that right to-day. The reason why they ask for the free use of the roads in my opinion is simply this: They want a prescriptive, statutory right to get on to the roads to the complete exclusion of all competitors. [Interruption.] That is my interpretation, and I do not ask any hon. Member to agree with it. I come now to the question of labour on the railways. I should be the last to say anything to injure the economic status of the railway workers. I admit that they occupy a position which they have attained, not through the good will of the railway shareholders, but by their own effort and organisation and class protection. If we look at this question of the position of the railways as it relates to the standard of life of the railway workers, we shall come across what seems to me to be something of a difficulty.
The railways as such are suffering to-day through the pressure of competition of road transport. I have never yet come across any body of workers who in such a position of difficulty were so foolish as to make up their minds that their position would be improved by intensifying the competition that endangered their economic status. That is what is
going to happen in this case. Now let me refer briefly to the speech made in the Debate last night by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley). Referring to the question of the interests of local authorities as affected by these Bills, he argued that complete unity had been reached in this matter between the local authorities and the promoters of the Bills. All opposition, he said, had been withdrawn. In order that I may not be misunderstood, I shall quote the hon. Member's words:
As late as yesterday, at a meeting of the Municipal Association, there was a vote of only 19 to 18 on the question of whether there should be continued opposition to the Bills—and that, as stated definitely by their leader, not on a question of principle at all, because they agree with the railway companies, but in order that they may have bargaining power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February. 1928; col. 353, Vol. 214.]
I humbly suggest, that the hon. Member for Barrow-on-Furness was misinformed on this matter. I have received to-day a communication from the Municipal Tramways and Transport Association (Incorporated), dated 28th February, which relates to the meeting referred to in the quotation I have just given. This is the opening sentence:
At a special meeting of this association, which represents all municipal transport authorities in the country, held yesterday, it was unanimously decided to invite Members of Parliament not to assent to the Second Reading of these Bills, unless the promoters give a definite assurance that they will not use the powers they are asking for, to establish competitive services traversing the same routes as tramways, trolley vehicles and motor omnibuses established under statutory authority.
I wait to-night for that assurance. It has not been given to the House up to now. In conclusion, I would state what, in my view, are the considerations which ought to weigh with the House in this matter. The first is that—apart, of course, from coastwise transport—in this matter road transport is the only safeguard against railway domination. From that conclusion there can be no escape. In the second place, is it wise, the condition of our roads being what it is—a condition of chaos and positive danger to the community—that we should give the railway companies the powers which are asked for here, in face of the likelihood that the present difficulties on the roads, even in normal circumstances, will increase rather than diminish. Then
there is the overpowering consideration of the conflict of interests that will inevitably arise, as the last speaker pointed out, between the railway companies, fortified by their statutory powers and with enormous capital behind them, on the one hand, and the local authorities, representing the ratepayers, on the other. That conflict will extend to all the other interests now on the road. In many parts of the country the problem now is very acute, and I could give instances to show how acute it is. There is no doubt in my mind that, if the railways get on to the roads, those difficulties will be tremendously increased. There is just one crumb of comfort for me in connection with these proposals. It may be, of course, that the trouble created by these Measures, when they are put into operation, will be so intense and so aggravating to the community, that the community will have to make up its mind that the only way of escape from chaos and difficulty is to have a nationalised transport system. If we want to create chaos in order to have this matter dealt with, instead of dealing with it in a rational, orderly, organised fashion, then let us vote for the Second Reading of these Bills to-night. But I can hardly believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote for these Bills, if they believe that the result of their action will be such as has been predicted from their own side of the House.

Mr. HARNEY: I do not share the apprehensions of the last speaker as to the consequences of this Bill, nor do I agree with his statement that what the Bill asks for is to give the railway company the same power on the roads as that which they now exercise on the rails. That is not so. The railway companies have specific monopolistic powers on their rails, which powers are restricted by various Acts of Parliament. All they ask for is the removal of a disability. At the present moment, I suppose, there is not an individual, a company, or a corporation, with the necessary money, debarred from entering into competition on the public roads without going to Parliament. The railway companies alone are debarred from doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "The local authorities."] The local authorities cannot do it, I agree—that is a specific case—but any
ordinary capitalist can do it. A colliery company can do it; Lyons can do it; any of these big companies, with the necessary money, can do it. Why are the railway companies placed under this disability? It is because from the middle of the last century they were regarded as the real monopolisers of transport. They were given monopoly privileges and, to counteract those privileges, they had to subscribe to certain restrictions. Since the monopoly upon which the restrictions are based has gone, why should not the restrictions go also? Do those who oppose the Bill go as far as to say that if road transport grows and if all traffic passes from the rails to the roads, the railway companies are to stand by and see their shareholders ruined, their rails, their plant, and their buildings scrapped, and do nothing to protect themselves? Is that the argument?
All that has been said in this Debate against the Bill has been nothing but the voice of vested interests. Let me say that we ought not to be too merciful if we are to treat with vested interests in a matter of this kind. All progress means treading on somebody's toes. Industrial advance is like a Juggernaut car, crushing every lesser force in the field, and if we are to stay the march of progress in order to protect those interests which have been established in less advanced times, then there will be stagnation. I think those who have listened to this Debate will agree with me when I say that although the arguments against it have been put in many forms, they can be summarised in this way—that if we pass this Bill the railway companies will either monopolise road transport, or, having crippled every other vehicle service there, will re-divert the traffic on to their own rails. That, I think, is the argument in a nutshell. That argument assumes a very sinister design on the part of the railway companies. Anyone listening to the last speaker and to many others would think the railway companies were a small group of rich, unscrupulous, unpatriotic, commercially-minded people. Who are the railway companies? They represent tens of thousands mainly of the middle and poorer classes. The great bulk of individual shareholders in the railway companies have holdings of under £500.

Sir BASIL PETO: Does the hon. and learned Member wish to say that the great mass of railway shareholders dictate the policy of the railways?

Mr. HARNEY: I think that is a wholly irrelevant observation. I am not dealing with the managers, who dictate the policy of railway companies as of most cempanies; I am dealing with the class of persons who in the long run have a voice and a say in the matter, and who are put forward in this Debate as though they had not a single view that was good for the national prosperity and as if they were not affected by what would affect the prosperity of the country, since they are scattered throughout the land. The whole of this matter was investigated by a Commission which sat in 1921. The Commissioners stated that the suspicions as to the designs of the railway companies were entirely unfounded, and they pointed out that in four of the railway companies they were for same time, though ultra vires, no doubt, engaged in competition on the roads, and they never used their great power and their money to act unfairly or to establish a monopoly.
But suppose we assume that the public and the shareholders scattered throughout the country would allow the management of the railway companies so to abuse their position, have they power to do so under the Bill? If they were either to obtain a monopoly of the roads or to re-divert traffic on to the rails, they could only do so by a process of undercutting and unremunerative charges, and the first thing that occurs to me is this, that it is not enough to clear the roads; they have to keep them clear, and does anyone tell me they could permanently engage in a war of unremunerative rates for the purpose of holding the roads? If, for the purpose of trying to recoup themselves, they raised the rates again, would not all the others rush in? Now I take the specific provisions in the Bill, and I say that if they were, for the purpose of crippling the existing companies engaged in road transport, to lower their charges to an unremunerative price, they would never be able to get back what they thereby lost, either on the rails or on the roads, and I will tell the House why. They could not get it back on the rails, because of Clause 7 of the Bill, which says in effect that the road services
shall be deemed to form an ancillary or subsidiary business … within the meaning of Sub-section (6) of Section 59 of the Railways Act, 1921,
That Act provides for a more or less fixed revenue for railways, and it then provides that as the revenue rose, the charges on the public should fall, and that as the revenue fell, the charges on the public might or might not be raised, dependent upon the view of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal were satisfied that a subsidiary service, whose losses were brought in to lower the revenue, got these losses by an artificial process of undercutting, would not the Tribunal decide that this was one of the circumstances where they could not get back their losses by raising their rates? That was the purpose of that Act. They could not, then, recuperate themselves on the railways. Could they do so on the roads? Clause 3 of this Bill says:
The Company may demand … such reasonable fares, rates, and charges as they may think fit … Provided that if any representative body of traders … or if any trader interested in any particular rate or charge … shall consider that rate or charge to be unreasonable, such body or trader may apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal … to reduce the said rates or charges.
If any more safeguards are wanted, I suppose they can be added in Committee. The last speaker, with considerable emphasis, told us that there was no question of the railway companies being unfairly treated, but that, on the contrary, everything was in their favour so far. I do not think the question, whether they are fairly or unfairly treated has much to do with it—I think it is purely a, question of what is good for the public—but I would like to point out that if they have £960,000,000 invested in their permanent way, stations, and so on, the interest on which may be put at £46,000,000 a year, and another £24,000,000 in upkeep, which is about £70,000,000 a year, it is all moonshine to say that motor cars and omnibuses, that have only to pay for their garages, have anything like that charge to meet. In that way, of course, the railway companies are at a great disadvantage, but I claim that, assuming that they cannot act unfairly by using their greater powers to drive all the other companies off the road and then lift their fares against the public, the passing of this Bill would bring about great benefits.
The first is this: It was mentioned by a speaker last night that there were heavy boilers drawn over the roads, which are not fit to bear them. Why? Because the railway rates are so high that it is cheaper to draw them along the roads.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And the railway bridges are so low.

Mr. HARNEY: I am speaking against time. It is because the railway rates have soared on account of the fact that you have diverted from the railways all that light and more remunerative traffic, and you have left them the burden of carrying these heavy things, like coal, iron, steel, machinery, and so on; and, of course, since they have no other way of paying themselves, they must lift the freights on these things. Nothing more injurious to the prosperity of the country could happen. We are all dependent on transport. Transport and rates are twin sisters in getting our export markets. We want to lessen the transport on our basic industries, such as coal, iron, and so on, which are the very things which are charged at a high rate now, because the railway companies have had withdrawn from them all their remunerative traffic. Your boiler would not be carried by road, but where it should be carried, I suggest, if you allowed this Bill to pass, and the companies could make their profits either by keeping the lighter traffic on the roads or by getting some of the traffic, such as the boilers, brought back on to the rails. You would then have cheaper road traffic, and you would also have cheaper rail traffic, because the profits of the roads would be brought into account in the railway revenue, and the raising of the railway revenue would compel them, by virtue of the Act of 1921, to lower their rates. Here we have a Bill that simply asks for the removal of a disability which, if removed, would allow the railway companies the opportunity of combining the two services in a way that would make for the most efficient and economic transport. The public, in the long run, must be the gainers. The railway companies could not take advantage of the right that would be given by this Bill to mulct the public, even if they were disposed to,
because there is already an Act on the Statute Book that prevents them from doing it.

Sir B. PETO: I must ask to be excused from replying to the ethical arguments with which the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) commenced his speech, or the flights of fancy into the realms of prophecy in which he indulged. I want to deal with the two basic questions which are before the House. This is the question of the Second Reading of this Bill. The right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) said in the Debate yesterday:
It is a very strong thing for the House to throw out a private Bill of this sort on Second Reading. When the House proposes to do such a thing the burden of proof lies upon the objector.''—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 28th February, 1928; col. 342, Vol. 211]
I want to put before the House, sentence by sentence, some of those proofs which the right hon. Gentleman thinks should be put forward by those who support the Amendment which would result in throwing out the Bill. First, this is not a question of any ordinary private Bill; it is a question which is concerned with a fundamental matter of public and national interest. Secondly, it is a question of policy which forms a basis of all the statutory powers under which the railway companies operate. Thirdly, in this Bill, by Clause 2, which is practically the whole Bill, they ask for powers that have always been refused by this House; more than that, powers that were definitely refused by the Majority Report of the Committee on Roads (Conveyance of Goods by Railway Companies) in 1921. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields referred to something that was contained in that Report. I will give two definite statements from it. It says:
The railway companies should have no further statutory powers in connection with direct road motor transport.
The Report further states:
The competition between road transport and rail transport is healthy and in the interests of the public.
That is the last Report this House has before it dealing with the subject, and I think, differing from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, that it would be a very strong thing for this House to throw out the findings of an authoritative Committee that sat on this very subject, and to decide, after two
evenings' debate, on a question of this kind which ought to be deferred until we have the Report of the Committees which was indicated by the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to a question. There is a second reason. The powers asked for in Clause 2 have been considered, not only by the representatives of the great basic industry of agriculture, but by industries of all kinds up and down the country, and I have not received a scintilla of opinion from any one of them in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. On the contrary, the National Farmers' Union, who, if anybody, can represent agriculture, formed a definite opinion on this subject; and I find that the Municipal Tramway and Transport Association Incorporated is also in opposition to the powers asked for by the railway companies. They say they consider that the granting of them would imperil £83,000,000 of public money invested in the transport facilities, mainly by the working-classes. With regard to the Farmers' Union, I would read a letter, dated to-day, which reached me from the chairman of that body. He says:
At our interview with representatives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company last week we repeated the statement which we made to the Unionist Agriculture Committee of the House, namely, that if it be true that the cheapest possible form of transport can only be obtained and permanently maintained by the concession of the companies' demand, the farmers are perfectly willing to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. At our interview with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company's representative not one shred of evidence was offered in support of the suggestion that cheaper rates would result from the concession of their demand, and, to do them justice, the railway company's representative never advanced the claim. Such being the case, you will quite understand that we feel as strongly about the matter as ever, and hope our friends in the House of Commons will support the Amendment.
That, at any rate, is up-to-date; it was written and conveyed to me by hand to-day. I would sum up the general conclusion to which these industrial bodies and this agricultural organisation have come. We have heard a great deal about co-ordination, and it is the principal claim, apart from the matter of ethics and the appeals to fair play of which so much use is made by the supporters of the Bill. Co-ordination is said to be
the thing. I have come to the conclusion—and I find it is the conclusion embodied in all the protests which have reached me—that co-ordination means, if it means anything, the elimination of competition. If it does not mean the elimination of competition, it is worth nothing to the railway companies. I would like to have dealt with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), but I would only say this in passing, that he put forward as one of his principal arguments the question which has been pretty well thrashed out: Why should not the railway companies freely use the roads? I will give my answer to that in slightly different words from those of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy). The railways have a free use of the roads for the purpose of bringing goods to feed their lines, and therefore, for the purpose of their industry, and that is the only industrial use to which any industry of this country puts the roads. They use the roads to bring goods to their works and to take them away, and so do the railway companies now, who have always been confined to that use and have not been allowed to embark on any competitive business, which is quite outside their statutory powers. But there is at least one consideration which I think stronger than any of those I have put before the House. Powers have not only been refused by the 1921 Committee, but yesterday, at Question Time, the Prime Minister promised a further inquiry. He said:
As to a general inquiry into the need for better regulation of road traffic and the possibility of greater co-ordination of our internal means of transport, the Government have it in comtemplation to institute without undue delay an investigation into this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1928; col. 225, Vol. 214.]
The whole argument for passing this Bill to-night is that the railway companies will be able to co-ordinate, that they will be able to undertake the co-ordination of our internal land transport. In face of the fact that while this Bill is before the House we are advised by the Leader of the House that he proposes to set up a fresh inquiry into this subject, it would really be more appropriate if the Bill were either withdrawn; if it were passed at all, it should not be
passed until it has been introduced on some more appropriate occasion when the House has been informed of the findings of this Committee set up in 1928 to consider the present position of road transport in the country and its coordination in relation to every other industry and interest as well as that of the railway companies. Therefore I shall oppose this Bill. I do not suppose that of itself that is of very great importance, but I do venture to hope that I have put before the House some simple and cogent reasons why the House should not give this Measure a Second Reading, reasons which have no relation to prophecies about the future but are concerned with the actual facts of the day.

9.0 p.m.

Major GLYN: The speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Baronet representing the Barnstaple Division (Sir B. Peto) was not, from its very start, of a character which led me to suppose that he proposed to vote for us. He made some play with a statement he read from the National Farmers' Union to say that in spite of several interviews they found themselves unable to support this Bill. Those of us who sit for agricultural constituencies regret that decision. because we believe, and are firmly convinced, that it is only by this Bill that we can bring down rates and fares, which certainly affect agriculture as much as any other industry. If we do not get this Bill there is a very great likelihood that by the very Act passed by this House, the House, and the agricultural Members in it, will be responsible for agricultural traffic rates going up, and then I should like to know what hon. Members will say to their constituents? I have received this afternoon a letter from the Rural District Councils' Association which is, to some extent, a counterblast to the letter from the National Farmers' Union. They say:
I beg to inform you that my Parliamentary and General Purposes Committee considered the terms of the above Bills at their meeting to-day, and they decided to approve of the said Bills, subject to the inclusion in the Bills of such safeguards as are necessary to protect the interests of all local authorities. My Committee desire to bring to your notice the fact that the rural councils of England and Wales are responsible
for more than three-fourths of the highways of the country and are vitally interested in this matter.
Let us look at this matter from the broad point of view. When the railways were instituted more than 100 years ago, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) said just now, they exercised a monopoly. If the House will forgive me for a personal statement, my grandfather was the first chairman of the old London and Birmingham Railway, which afterwards became the London and North Western Railway. Family records show that he was looked on with the utmost suspicion, and regarded as a regular monster and blackguard for thinking of establishing railways in this country. The stage coach was supposed to be the only means a gentleman should use in moving about the country. Parliament recognised that there was a monopoly there, and, therefore, Parliament said, "We will control and protect the public interests in this matter." Who has got the monopoly to-day? Not the railways, forsooth, but the road hauliers, and all the fuss we are having now arises from the fact that they very much dislike any interference with their monopoly.
Let us be perfectly clear in this matter. Is Parliament prepared to turn down these Bills to-night with the idea that it is doing something in the national interest? What Parliament will do if it rejects these Bills is to protect a monopoly which was built up very largely when the railways were not controlled by their present managements, but were under the control—I regret to say it to hon. Members opposite—of a sort of dead hand of Government. The dead hand of Government was so much a dead hand that it allowed those outside undertakers to spread their net on the roads of the country. I notice that last night the hon. Baronet for South Derby (Sir J. Grant) stated that there were two industries concerned here, and remarked, "Let the railways leave our industry alone." I think that is a most extraordinary statement, because if we are going to look upon transportation as transportation, what right have we in this House, or anywhere else, to put it into two compartments, and to say, "One industry goes on rails and another industry goes on wheels on the roads?" In this Bill we are asking for no more
and no less than the right which every railway company possesses in every one of our Dominions and in every other great country in the world. Every other country allows railways to operate these means of transportation to assist trade and industry.
We give lip service to a desire to see trade and industry prosper in this country, but if we are going to do that we must assist the means of transportation, and are we better judges than the managers of the railways as to what steps should be taken to make the railways efficient? With all respect to this House, I often wonder how many millions of pounds have been lost through Parliament exercising its power of restriction and holding back the sane progress of the railways. Large sums of money have been spent to promote Bills which have been turned down, and not only is that money lost, but the fact of turning down the schemes submitted has been a very serious factor in the development of transportation in this country. None the less it is right and proper—the railways do not complain—that Parliament should retain its full control over the business of the railways. All we say is that Parliament ought not to look upon a railway company every time it comes to this House as a sort of cross between a highwayman and a gentleman who wishes to bring about the disruption of this country. The railways of this country are essential to it, we cannot do without them, and when the railways ask for these powers they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Let us recognise the fact that it will go down in history that this is the first great industry in which the management, the men, the shareholders and everybody else concerned are united in support of their industry, which is a public utility undertaking. If it were not a public utility service we could not expect to get the support we have received from all grades in the railway world. It is their support which will make it possible for us to get this decision to-night.
May I say one word about the question of a monopoly. Time is short, and I must be brief. We have been told extraordinary things about this question of monopoly. First of all we believe that the terms of the Bill are sufficient to prevent the railways undertaking any
competition or doing anything which will have the effect of creating a monopoly. Let me put it from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence. I suppose everyone will admit that if you are going to try to run the vehicles of your rivals off the road you must at least have an equal number of vehicles to your rivals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, nearly as many, let us say 75 per cent. You must have approximately the same number of vehicles, or otherwise you could not hope to run them off the road.
What are the figures? I do not say these figures are absolutely accurate, and they are bound to be only approximate owing to depreciation and other causes. I asked the officials at Euston to get out particulars, as far as they could, of the number of commercial and passenger vehicles, and make a rough general estimate as to their approximate value. According to their estimates, in 1922, there were 162,425 commercial vehicles of an approximate value of £60,000,000. There were 29,000 passenger vehicles, excluding taxi-cabs, the estimated total value of which was £86,000,000. I will not trouble the House with the figures for the years between 1922 and 1927, but last year there was an estimated increase from 162,425 vehicles to 284,931, with an approximate value of £105,000,000. Passenger vehicles reached an approximate value of £29,000,000, making a total on the roads to-day of £134,000,000 value of rolling stock. Can the railway companies reach that number of vehicles or spend that amount of money, even if they were to drive the omnibus companies off the roads? All these pictures which have been drawn of intense competition leave out of account the fact that there is nothing to-day to prevent anybody going on the roads operating vehicles without restrictions as to hours or wages, and running in competition not only with the railways, but with other statutory bodies, such as municipalities or anything else.
I would like to mention two facts. We listened last night to a most able and interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). No matter upon which side of the House we sit we all realise that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks he speaks with knowledge, and in such a way that he is bound to bring great force to any case which he
puts forward. The right hon. Gentleman put directly to the House one or two points, and I have been asked to-day if I would make a statement to the House which would give some reply to the points which he made. With the permission of the House, I would like to read a considered statement.
A desire was expressed that definite assurances should be given by the railway companies that Clause 7 of this Bill did fully embody the intentions of Parliament as expressed in Sections 58 and 59, Sub-sections (4) and (6) of the Railway Act of 1921. I am authorised to say that the legal advisers of the railway companies are of opinion that the Clause, as drawn, is adequate for that purpose, but that if in the Committee stage it can be shown that the drafting of the Clause can be improved to make its intention clearer, the railway companies will put no obstacle in the way.
Another point of great substance is the accusation that the railway companies might be induced to withdraw certain services. In order to show that there is no attempt to create a monopoly, and to emphasise the fact that the companies want to continue their obligations to the State, they are prepared at the proper time to consider a Clause on the following lines: They will agree not to withdraw any regular services other than experimental of road vehicles without giving some form of public notice to enable such persons objecting to such withdrawal to lodge an objection with the Minister of Transport who shall have the power to order the continuance of such services in a proper way if he thinks fit. This is put forward as an additional safeguard, and if Clause 7 is watertight, if the power imposed on the tribunal is to prevent undercutting on the one hand, or spending too much of the shareholders' money on the other hand, and also that services once started shall be retained, that surely is a proof that the railway companies will make full use of their services and do absolutely nothing except improve inland communications.
May I say that I have done my level best to find out what is the legal effect of the Bill, and it is as was said by an eminent lawyer last night in this House. Finally, the railway companies do not come to Parliament to seek any privileged
position by this Bill. They only ask that there shall be equality of treatment with the other road transport undertakings. They welcome the statement that the Government intend, during the life of this Parliament, by proceeding with the Road Traffic Bill to revise general legislation and review all local Acts provided that they, the railway companies, have the same rights and powers as any other road users. The provisions of the Act of 1921 and this Bill fully protect the public including road hauliers and railway shareholders. That is the summary of what are the intentions of the promoters of the Bill.
I know there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I will only say, in conclusion, that I believe most of the points which are exercising the minds of hon. Members in various parts of the House can be dealt with in Committee. It is our business on the Second Reading to recognise the great responsibility of Parliament in the control it has over these great public utilities, and when they come to Parliament asking for these powers it is the business of Parliament to consider, in the first place, the public interest. [An HON. MEMBER: "And municipalities!"] Yes, and municipalities, and I take it that municipalities are included in the term "public interest." I am not in a position to answer those questions at the moment, but, if you have these great undertakings and this responsibility towards them, I do think it is a matter of real importance to give a Second Reading by a large majority, because we believe that by a large majority we shall encourage a new era of transportation which will take into account modern inventions, and allow every possible means of assisting trade and industry, and attain that end which in the view of experts can be best attained by this Bill.

Mr. MARCH: Last week the House was very much concerned in debating the question of the extra number of vehicles coming on the road, and the very large increase in the number of accidents. I believe that everyone in the House expressed their sympathy in regard to the chaotic state of the roads of London and outer London. We have heard about the extra number of vehicles that are continually coming on to the roads, and I desire to support the Amendment which
proposes that the question of granting the railway companies these powers should be postponed until after an inquiry has been held. I believe it to be essential that an inquiry should be held into the whole traffic position, because of the vast numbers of accidents and deaths that are continually occurring. Further, our roads are not yet, by a long way, prepared to receive heavier traffic; a lot remains to be done before the roads can accept a larger quantity of traffic. I maintain, representing, as I do, a Division in which there are five railway goods depots and five docks, and where a tremendous amount of work is done from the docks to the railways and from the railways to the docks, that, if the railway companies were so much concerned in getting more traffic, they could get more traffic by themselves taking the goods to and from the docks, instead of engaging, as they do, contractors to do that work. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are not in competition with the contractors, because they go on engaging contractors to do a large amount of work which they are not prepared to do themselves, and, as one of my hon. Friends reminds me, sweated work at that. There are also in my Division three large coal depots which are used by the railway companies. We have to put up with all the inconvenience of shunting and of engines puffing about, and then we find that the railway companies are not even utilising the rails to the extent that they might.
When the question of the co-ordination of the railways was being discussed in this House, it was said that, if the railway companies were united, better facilities would be given for passengers and also for goods traffic, that there would be co-ordination of management, and better consideration for the public generally. Since the co-ordination has taken place, the railway companies in my district have stopped two of the passenger lines. For many years, on one of these lines, there used to be trains every quarter of an hour, but that has been abolished entirely. On another junction line, from Millwall to North Greenwich, the trains used to run every 20 minutes, but that also has been abolished entirely. On another railway in the district., from Poplar to Broad Street, there was for
many years a quarter-hour service, but now only a skeleton service is run. I went there the other day to ask for a ticket to Broad Street, and one of the porters said to me, "You know, Sir, you will have to wait an hour and a quarter for a train." I said, "Is that all" And then they wonder at losing passenger traffic.
The old line from Fenchurch Street to Blackwall was the first line to run from Fenchurch Street into Poplar, and at that time, some 50 odd years ago, it used to be run by an endless chain. Nothing has been done to improve it except to put on steam engines, and then they brought all the old engines and carriages they could find from other parts of the railway. If they had been inclined to cater for passengers—and they used to have a fairly heavy traffic—they could have electrified that piece of line, but they did not do so; they turned the people off on to the omnibuses and trams, and people had to get to and from the City in the best way they could. Now the company wants powers to run omnibuses to pick up those passengers again. If they do that, they will make the condition of the streets of London, especially the Commercial Road, more chaotic than it is at present. I maintain that the railway companies have not utilised the powers that they have had. They have been dispensing with their rolling stock and dispensing with their men on that line, and putting the passengers to great incon venience. Therefore on behalf of the division which I have the honour to represent in this House, I strongly oppose the giving to the railway companies of the privilege of putting more vehicles on the roads, and cutting out the smaller people who have been doing that work for many years in the absence of the railway companies.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: I ask myself a preliminary question in contemplating this Bill. It is this: If the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, in promoting its original Bill, had asked for these powers, would Parliament have granted them? I know that the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, in promoting its Bill, did ask for these powers, and these powers were granted. I understand that three other railway companies, in promoting
their Bills, asked for these powers,, and they were granted. Consequently, I imagine that, if the London, Midland and Scottish, or the companies that compose it, had asked for these powers, these powers would have been granted. What has occurred, since the railway companies obtained their Bills, to cause us any hesitation in granting to them to-day powers which would have been granted to them had they asked for them at the beginning? All that has occurred is that there has been a change of habit, that there have been new inventions, and that, combining the change of habit and the new inventions, certain individuals and financial companies have exercised powers and built up vested interests while the railway companies were under the inhibition of their existing powers. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Sir J. Grant) asked last night, "Why does not the railway company stick to its job?" What is the job of the railway company? It is not to run engines; it is to carry traffic. The purpose of a railway company is to carry goods and passengers. I agree that in its initial stage it was to carry goods and passengers on rails, because there was no other invention for carrying them on the roads at that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "The stage coach!"]

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the hon. Member aware that there were steam locomotives on the roads, and that the railway companies got powers to forbid them?

Mr. MITCHELL: And the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) is just on the exact lines of the opposition of the stage coach proprietors to the railways. There are four railway companies which already have these powers. They have exercised these powers, and there has been no complaint from anyone that they have cut prices, or tried to drive other people off the roads. They have exercised their powers in exactly the same way, only in very different circumstances, as the individual proprietors of passenger omnibuses and the haulage companies. But the change of habit has made a big difference. I no longer contemplate the possibility of people travelling short distances from station to station, or sending small loads from
station to station. People are now going to travel short. distances from point to point and send small loads from yard to yard. Therefore, we must take it that, as far as the railway companies are concerned, whatever alterations they may be able to make in the way of increased efficiency will not get back that traffic. But, on the other hand, as I see it—and I speak without expert knowledge—I cannot see that the railway companies can continue to exist with only long-distance traffic and heavy haulage traffic. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Derbyshire lives at Nairn. I know it well, and I envy him his residence, but no railway company could ever exist by carrying long-distance passengers from London or from Glasgow to Nairn. They must have intermediate traffic, or they must have something to supplement their resources from the long distance and heavy traffic if they are to retain the long distance and heavy traffic at a reasonable rate of prices, and who, I ask my Friends on this side of the House, of all the individuals and companies that are running road traffic, are more entitled to our consideration in the matter of road traffic than the railway companies?
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy chaffed some of his friends because they look upon this from a social as well as an economic aspect. There is a very big social aspect. There are 700,000 men employed on the railways. They have in their terms of employment, in their wages, their hours, their continuous employment, their national agreements, their co-ordination of proprietors and employés, everything for which any Member of this House stands when he goes before his constituents. They have, in their terms of employment and in their standard of life, everything that we all say to our constituents we want to obtain for everybody, and those 700,000 men represent 2,000,000 of the inhabitants of this country. Let us look at the people who have a privilege that some hon. Members would deny to the railway companies. We speak best from facts. There is a very prominent route from Glasgow. One of the ears is driven by a boy of 17 who works from 6.35 in the morning till midnight seven days a week for 30s. Another boy of 19 works from 11 at night till 9.0 at the morning, conducts an omnibus frequently during the day after he has
finished his night's work, goes straight on to night duty and gets 30s. a week. I intimated to the company a year ago that I would use this if ever an opportunity arose. On Friday night at 11 o'clock, this youth went on duty and worked through the night in the office. He carried on in the office on the Saturday, worked in the office on Saturday night and on Sunday morning he was sent for a long tour with a char-a-bane party, came back to the office and worked till nine o'clock on Monday morning—58 hours at one stretch—with no increase in his wage of 30s. a week. Is this House going to say people can carry on like that without any restriction while the great railway companies, making national agreements, have higher wages, regular hours, superannuation, continuous employment and everything we think desirable, are to be prohibited from competing with them? [Interruption.] I know my friends do not like this.
Let me take it from another aspect. The passenger is a very important element when we are considering the question of transport. I could give the House numerous cases within my own experience of accidents happening to chars-a-bancs and omnibuses and claims for damages, but the omnibus is on the hire-purchase system and is not insured and you get nothing. A great accident happened in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow. [Interruption.] There were no lawyers' fees. That is not a proper remark, and the next time the hon. Member desires to refer to my profession, he will please do it outside and not in this House.

Mr. KENNEDY: The remark I made was in my judgment a perfectly orderly and proper remark and was not intended, as the hon. Member perfectly well knows, to apply to himself in any sense. If he chooses to apply it to himself personally, of course, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr. D. HERBERT: An insulting remark made worse by the explanation.

Mr. MITCHELL: The accident occurred on 22nd April, 1927, and eight passengers were seriously injured. Application was made for reparation. It was found the bus was on the hire purchase system. The proprietor disappeared, there was no insurance and no one received a penny. Here is a
judgment for £500 passed against a substantial company running along the side of the Clyde. The company held eight buses on the hire purchase system. They sold the lot for over £1,000 and went into liquidation. The injured passengers and their bereaved relatives obtained nothing. We in this House must have a care, when dealing with transport, for the interest of the passengers and if people are to be allowed, unrestricted, to carry passengers without giving them any guarantee or insurance or reparation for damage, what is the objection to a great concern like the London, Midland and Scottish Company, entering into competition with them if it is possible, when we know that every passenger travels with a security that if there is an injury, he will be compensated and if there is a death the bereaved relatives will be amply compensated? These are reasons that weigh very heavily with me. I have heard a lot of discussion from people who are interested—trade union representatives, railway representatives and others. I have no interest except the interest of the citizens as a whole in their capacity as employés, passengers and manufacturers, and I ask the House to support. the Measure, which I think is in every sense just.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I am afraid that I have not been very greatly impressed by the hon. Member who spoke last. He made a very good point with regard to the advisability of taking some steps to see that reasonable hours are conceded to the workers who are doing road transport not under railway auspices. As the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) said last night, it is also a thing that ought to be considered that all those who drive railway engines have to undergo recurring trials to see that they are physically fit in eyesight and everything else. I agree that in this great problem of transport by road similar regulations should be made to apply to those who are carrying on that work. There is no very great difficulty why that should not be done, but this seems to me an entirely wrong way to set about it. It is entirely wrong, too, for the railway directors, shareholders, and employés to say, "Look at the rates we have to pay and look how that is subsidising our competitors." The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Sir J. Grant)
produced figures last night which, to my mind, rather tended to show that this over-rating of railways was not an actual fact. Assuming it is, surely the way to deal with that is by some legislation to deal with the rates on the railways and not be giving them a monopoly on the roads, because I believe that that would be the result, though it is not perhaps the intention of the promoters, of this Bills, Last night one of those supporting the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Mitchell Banks), gave us the following quotation:
It has been laid down by a great British statesman that our constitution knows nothing of mandates and delegates. While the man who represents any particular constituenecy ought to do his best for his constituents, he ought first to think of the interests of the country at large, and if these are not reconcilable with the interests of his constituents then the latter must take second place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1928; col. 325, Vol. 214.]
He went on to say that he was in the fortunate position of being able to gratify his railway constituents by supporting the Bill. I am not quite so fortunate, because, led by their directors to believe that this is in their real interests, a great many of my constituents who are railway shareholders and railway workers are very much in favour of this Bill. On the other hand, the constituency I represent includes a great many interests, and all the other interests outside the railways have asked me to contest this Bill. I may add, perfectly frankly—as some suggestion about voting has been bandied about and I regret that it has been done—that I have no direct interest either in railways or in transport companies, but I try to look at the matter from the point of view of the man in the street. We have to regard this from the point of view of what is going to be the result to the whole of the people of this country. I understand the Minister of Transport gives his blessing to this Bill. I do not for a moment question his superior judgment on matters of the regulation of transport and so on, but, if he will pardon me saying so, I would suggest that that immediate Departmental outlook has perhaps clouded his view as to what the ultimate result of a Measure like this may be. I would remind the House, although it has been referred to
before, that the majority of the Committee, set up in 1921, in the Report on the Conveyance of Goods by Railway Companies stated quite definitely that railway companies should have no further statutory powers in connection with direct road motor transport because competition between road transport and rail transport is in the interests of the country.
When we come to look at these conflicting views, I think the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has taken the wise course. He always makes a speech full of profound and lucid thought with remarkable lucidity of expression. He comes down to the fundamentals of things, and f followed his speech last night with great interest, but what did it amount to in the end? It was an appeal that, before we deal with this in a piecemeal way, we should have a comprehensive inquiry into the whole problem of transport. My objection to giving this Bill a Second Reading is that we are taking it far too soon. I do not believe in these long delays or in setting up Royal or other Commissions if you are simply going to sidetrack the matter or put it in a pigeon hole from which it may never be taken out. As the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh pointed out, we have a mass of material already, and an additional Committee put on to consider it would report in a short time, and it would then be right to take these very serious steps. As he pointed out, whatever side of the House we sit on, whatever political views we take, whatever economic views we take—and we must do each other the justice of saying that our views are honest and that we are working in the interests of the community as a whole—we have arrived at a very difficult problem with regard to the whole of the land transport of this country whether by rail, road, canal, river or otherwise. It is not wise for this House to give a Second Reading to a Measure which deals haphazardly with a very vast subject of this kind.
I do not wish to detain the House, but I think a person who has got no particular interest in the question and who represents a constituency with conflicting views should be entitled to say what seems to him to be common sense in these matters. There has been a certain
amount of political feeling introduced into this Debate, which I regret. For instance, last night the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to a remark made by the Seconder of the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, who talked of an unholy alliance between capital and labour on this subject. I would not put it quite in that way, but I would point out that undoubtedly the railways in this country are sheltered industries. No foreign competition can touch them, because you cannot run foreign railways on British soil, and there is no doubt that, wherever you have such a protection as that, there is a danger, both for shareholders, directors, and employées, to live in a fool's paradise and think that they can to a certain extent hold the rest of the community up to ransom. I am not attacking the standard of living of the railway workers at all or the dividends of the shareholders, but l am suggesting that, if you remove the road competition as well, you are going to have inefficiency of management and a happy family party who are going to ladle out an undue dose of the soup to their friends while the rest of the community may starve. That is not a wholesome state of affairs at all.
We have had railway directors speaking to us to-night, most admirable, most honourable and gallant men, but they seem to have suggested that all wisdom and all virtue began and ended in the railway directors. I do not see it, and I have never seen it. I can point to what has been done by very active, not even municipal, private road companies who did not, as the hon. Member opposite suggested, pay men 30s. a week in order to work 50 hours a day at a stretch. It is an exaggeration, but it is one that almost came to my mind. I cannot imagine a man going on working 50 hours on end and being able to do any work at all. I will accept his figures, but what I want to point out is that, though that may take place in such unfortunate constituencies as he is unfortunate enough to represent, yet in the East of Scotland, where we are purely Scottish and have no alien blood, nothing of the kind takes place. We have there the Scottish Motor Transport Company—again I reiterate that I have no financial interest in it at all—and I have watched it with some interest, because I have benefited as a passenger by it, and I have known the
people of the locality to benefit by it Until that came into existence the railway companies did not give the consideration to the public that they are now willing to give.
It is entirely wrong to say that any body of privileged men, shareholders, directors and employés, can go on and force up what they call the standard of living at the expense of the public. It cannot be done. What happens, especially in a basic industry, is that if you simply insist on good dividends, good wages, good directors' fees, you may hold up the nation to ransom for a little while. But what are you doing? You are making the whole cost of transport dearer. Your railway porter's wife pays more for a pound of tea because there is more freight on it. That is the simplest and most direct way to put it, and it is perfectly true. What is more, you put a stranglehold on the other basic industries of the country—the iron and steel trades and the others—and you make it more difficult for them to compete. Some of them are crushed out, and there are fewer industries and individuals able to bear the taxation in relief of unemployment and distress, and yet there is more taxation put upon them.
I am told that it is perfect nonsense to talk about the railway companies with this power under this Measure being able to strangle competition, because the Tribunal will see to it that if they are running their road transport at a loss they will have to drop it. They need not attempt to run it at a loss at all, but they can run it at a narrow margin of profit. Supposing you and I were running a business and you had another large business and you could take the risk of running at a small margin of profit. You might do that. I, being dependent upon it for my livelihood and for the livelihood of my family might just make it pay, but you by under-cutting could take away part of my trade, which would make all the difference between my being able to carry on and not being able to do so. I maintain in the interests of the railway companies that it is very doubtful if they will be able to embark upon this thing at all. The state of the roads to-day is such that the roads will not take much more heavy transport. I am sure the Minister of Transport is perfectly aware of that. The roads were
not built for it and the enormous expenditure necessary in order to make them take it will not be of benefit to this country. Therefore, either the railway companies in order to crush out competition are going to congest the roads to a dangerous extent or else they are going to risk and lose shareholders' and employers' money on it.
The real remedy, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Sir J. Grant) pointed out last night, is not to try and grab your opponents' weapons in competition of this kind but to get a more skilful use of your own. The gas companies did not make any incursion into the field of the electrical companies, but improved their own methods and persuaded the public to take advantage of their services. So should the experts of the railway companies concentrate on improving railway transport and leave it to the others who represent the general public to carry out the great work of road transport. I hope the House will excuse me from further developing these ideas. It is for all these reasons, to give fair play to the railway companies, directors, shareholders and employés, to give fair play to their competitors, and, above all, to give fair play to the nation, that I say: Reject this Measure, at least until we have had this inquiry of a comprehensive character to which the Government are more or less pledged.

Sir WALTER RAINE: I think it is necessary in a Debate of the seriousness of that which we are having to-night that all points of view, or as many as possible, should be put before the House in order that Members may, if possible, arrive at a true perspective of the case. I wish, very briefly, to put before the House the view of the chambers of commerce of this country which are associated and federated and represent a membership of 50,000 traders of all descriptions. They recognise that it is a very serious matter for the commercial community of this country. They have given very careful consideration indeed to the Bill, and they are in favour of the principles of it. They say that, if the powers are granted, proper safeguards should be given not only to the traders, but to the public and to the municipal authorities. It is well known
that the whole transport of this country has considerably changed during the past few years to the serious detriment of the railway companies. The railway companies have had a competitor, and, while the railway companies' costs have been going up, this competitor, namely, the road haulier, has been getting an advantage from the Road Fund. It is true that he has made a certain contribution to the Road Fund, but I think that if you examine the figures you will find that the ratepayer has, after all, paid the larger sum. I think I am correct in saying that during the past 15 or 17 years the amount of money expended on the roads and bridges of this country is something like £500,000,000, and that I am within the mark when I say that two-thirds of that sum has been paid by the ratepayers. In fact, if I may put it in another way, I think that the Road Fund has induced many local authorities to spend money at the expense of the ratepayers. Speaking as one with considerable municipal experience, I can remember many occasions on the local council, when, listening to the views of some enthusiasts in respect of a particular scheme, we have been carried away by the statements "Oh, the Government pays 50, 60 or 70 per cent.," and have awakened later wiser but sadder men.
The Chambers of Commerce have had an opportunity of meeting the railway directors, or some of them, and they have given a definite assurance on some various points which I will very briefly recite. The profits, if any, on this road traffic have to be added to the standard railway revenue and losses have not to be met by increasing railway rates. In other words, if there are any losses, the shareholders have to bear them. They do not intend to manufacture vehicles, and wherever they own interests in another road transport company it shall be put on the same footing as the road service of the railway company itself. We advocate that these Bills should be given a Second Reading, because we are very much afraid that if they do not get a Second Reading the railway companies, in view of the increased competition which they are having to meet, will be obliged, as has been explained, to put up their railway charges on the further diminished traffic. The trade of this country is already bearing an increased
railway cost for a reason which is known to the House. I candidly say that the trade of this country cannot stand any more expense. The Chambers of Commerce likewise favour these Measures being dealt with by a Joint Committee. If the House give a Second Reading to this Bill and to the remaining railway Bills, these various points, with the assurance which the railway companies have given not only to the Chambers of Commerce but to other bodies, might with safety be dealt with in detail in Committee.
There is one further point, and that is the question of the proposed inquiry. We think that the matter is too urgent for the railway companies to be held up while the official inquiry takes place. The Chambers of Commerce suggest and urge that Parliament should grant these powers to the railway companies, subject to any conditions that may have to be imposed as a result of the inquiry. Then, the inquiry could take place and the matter could be, once for all, investigated. I do not wish to boast about the Chambers of Commerce, but I would point out that in 1925 we recommended to the Minister of Transport that he ought to have an inquiry into this matter. We have repeated our request several times. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the seriousness of the problem in this country in the way that some of the commercial men were able to foresee it. Had the right hon. Gentleman held the inquiry which we suggested, all the necessary facts would have been available to-day. I do not intend to develop my arguments further, but I do plead that the House should give the Bills a Second Reading and allow the various points to be fought out in Committee upstairs.

Mr. SEXTON: I would not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell) and what I considered to be his unfair comparison of sweating. Of course, there is sweating in road transport, as elsewhere; but there are organised transport workers who are not sweated, about whom I am concerned. There is only one way to meet sweating on the roads and that is by competing with the sweater. If the railway companies are going to compete with the sweater, they will have to do so by sweating
themselves, and then what will happen to the men who are organised under trade union conditions? I want to be reassured on this point.
Personally, I am in favour of the principle of the Bill. I am in favour of the freedom of the road but not at the expense of the slavery of those who work on the roads. If proper safeguards are given by the railway companies, if there is no interference with the municipalities, and if the municipalities can be assured that the railway companies if they come on to the roads will not only kill the sweaters but kill the sweating, then I am heart and soul with the railway companies. I am fortified in my views on this question by the attitude of the town council of the town which I represent. I represent a purely Labour constituency. The Home Secretary knows something about that. The municipality of St. Helens is run by Labour. Ninety-five per cent. of its representatives on the town council are Labour representatives, and I represent the Division in Parliament, and am proud to do so. The town council of St. Helens ask that safeguards should be given in regard to the municipalities, and I ask not only that safeguards should be given but that we shall know what the safeguards will be. A special meeting of the St. Helens Town Council has been held, at which a resolution was passed asking me to offer opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill unless proper safeguards are given. They ask me to oppose the Second Reading unless satisfactory assurances are given that the rights and interests of local authorities owning tramways or omnibuses or other transport facilities are adequately safeguarded. I have no objection to the railway companies coming on to the roads. I have no objection to them dealing with the sweaters. There are sweaters on the roads and there are also sweaters on the railways. I would like to know whether the railways will guarantee not to give their work out to anyone who pays less than the trade union rates of wages. If the railways can give that guarantee and can give the safeguards for which I have asked, my opposition and the opposition of the town I represent will have been met.

Colonel ASHLEY: We have had a very interesting Debate, especially this evening, and whether one agrees or disagrees with the hon. Member for Paisley
(Mr. R. Mitchell) we were all enthralled by his eloquence. I am afraid that the people who are represented by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) have very little confidence in the Minister of Transport.

Mr. THOMAS: Subject to chat you say to-night.

10.0 p.m.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received from their joint constituents in the railway world no fewer than 26,500 postcards. From those who are represented by my hon. Friends the railway directors I have received a multitude of personal letters. As befits democratic people, the postcards came from supporters of the benches opposite, while,the letters came from the representatives of the capitalists. I shall, naturally, give due weight to the communications which have been sent to me. There is a silver lining to every cloud, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will on this occasion reap a rich harvest from the communications which I have received. I would ask the right hon. Member for Derby to convey my regrets to his constituents that I am unable personally to answer every single one of the communications which have been sent to me.
Although it has not been very apparent in the Debates, certainly the belief is prevalent outside, and even in the Press, that the railway companies are now seeking some new departure; that the railway directors awoke one morning and said: "Let us go on to the roads," and that these Bills are the result of those sudden thoughts. No new principle is involved. All that these Bills demand is an extension of the power already given to the railway companies for a great number of years. There is no new principle involved in these Bills. It is a matter of policy, whether the extension should be given or not. These powers to run on the roads which are exercised by the railway companies, are derived from three sources. Some of the companies only derive them from two sources. In the first place, the general powers to run on roads are inherent in a railway company, owing to the fact that they have certain powers given to them by Parliament to do transportation. That power is rather vague and ill-defined,
and the limits laid down by law have not been settled. Then there are, of course, the powers given to them specifically in Section 49 of the Act of 1921, which gives them the power as far as goods are concerned to deal with traffic originating on their system or traffic going to their system.
Thirdly, there are the specific powers given to certain parts of the four great systems by private Acts, almost unfettered by any restrictions in certain areas. These systems have absorbed certain companies which had private Acts giving them very extensive powers before amalgamation took place. By these Bills, if they are passed, these exceptional powers are to be abolished, and the general powers sought by these Bills substituted. They are already operating on the roads to a large extent. It has been stated that more than 3,000 motor vehicles are now being operated by railway companies, and it seems, therefore, that they are taking a very considerable part in road transportation. All parts of the world wherever there are railways, and there are very few now where there are not, are engaged in grappling with the problem as to how far railways in their respective countries shall be allowed to go upon the roads, and in every country that I can find the railways are being allowed to go on the roads, on differing conditions, I admit, but in no case has any rigid refusal been given to them when they have sought these powers. In Ireland, as far as I am able to gather, the Free State and Northern Ireland take diametrically opposite views of this problem. In both cases powers are given to the railway companies to run on the roads, but in Northern Ireland they have very little restriction placed upon them, whereas in the Free State my opposite number there—I do not remember his office at the moment—is able to prevent companies running road services anywhere unless they have previously obtained consent.
I point that out in order to show that this is a world problem. It is being solved in different ways; each country deals with it as it thinks best. The Balfour-Browne Committee of 1921 has been mentioned, and great play has been made of the fact that the Majority Report is against further powers for the railways. I believe it is quite true that there were
four against, three for, and one took a rather different attitude. He said that he wanted to nationalise everything, and, therefore, was in favour of the nationalisation of the roads. At any rate it is quite true that the Chairman, Mr. Balfour-Browne, an eminent K.C. and well known throughout the country, was the only man who did not represent an interest on the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He was not connected with railways or with the road services. He was there in a perfectly impartial position, and his view was that extended powers should be given to railway companies. Then we had the very important and well-thought-out Committee of 1922 presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. They unanimously came to the conclusion that further powers to go on the roads should be given to the railways, subject to safeguards against uneconomic competition. I entirely agree with them in that finding, and with the rider which they put forward. It seems to me that you cannot in equity say to the railways, you are the only people who are to be debarred from using the roads, when everybody else can use them.
It may be said, and is said, that while it may be right in equity that railway companies should be allowed to come on to the roads, they are great corporations, they command great blocks of capital, they have behind them the trained bands of the right hon. Member for Derby, and will be able to sweep away all competition by weight of money and weight of numbers, and then establish a monopoly. I agree with that; I think great corporations and great public utility companies must be curbed. I agree with that, but anticipating these criticisms and trying to meet legitimate points of view the railway companies have inserted safeguards in this Bill. I propose by permission of the House to examine for a moment or two what these safeguards are worth and whether they will, as a matter of fact, safeguard public interests and the general public as well, which after all is what we must look after and nothing else. They have put in two main safeguards. The first is Clause 7, what is called the ancillary Clause. It has been explained by several hon. Members very lucidly during this Debate and I, therefore, will
not seek to explain it at any great length now. What it means shortly is this; that if any loss is made on ancillary services, such as now may be made on hotels or docks under the Act of 1921, then the rates of the railway company shall not be put up in order to make good the loss but that the pockets of the shareholders shall be made to suffer the loss. The other safeguard given by the railway companies is that there shall be an appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal by traders on the ground that the rates charged on roads are too high.
I will indicate, not exhaustively by any means, some of the recommendations which I shall think it my duty to make to the Committee if this Bill gets a Second Reading in order to strengthen the safeguards which have been put in by the railway companies themselves. Frankly, I do not think the safeguards as they are in the Bill are sufficient to carry out the undertakings given. Clause 7, the ancillary services Clause, is the vital Clause in the Bill, the corner stone of all the safeguards. Other safeguards, though important, are not vital, but this is vital, and I should respectfully tender my advice to the Committee that they should see that this was made a real safeguard. No doubt the Committee will be able to do this if their attention is specifically brought to it. Yesterday there was an interesting contribution to our Debates by the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks), and with the permission of the House I should like to read two sentences from his speech dealing with Clause 7, because I am in complete accord with what he says. He cannot be held to be unduly hostile to the railway companies, he is the Member for Swindon. The hon. and learned Member said:
I agree that the terms of Clause 7 ought to be more strict, but I think that that Clause does give the Tribunal control over the ancillary business by allowing them to make deductions in the other sphere so as to prevent the other companies entering into cut-throat competition … The Committee should see that a rate war is not entered upon with a view, in the first place, to abolishing competition, and bleeding the public when competition has been eliminated. I am disposed to think that the terms of the Bill are already sufficient for this purpose, and, if they are not, proper terms can be provided in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1928; col. 328, Vol. 214.]
What, I should propose to do is to draw the attention of the Committee to the safeguard in this ancillary Clause as it stands, and to ask them respectfully to make sure that it is watertight and will carry out really what it purports to carry out. Then I should be disposed also to suggest to the Committee that they should insert a Clause making it obligatory on the companies to report to the Minister of Transport when they institute a service on the roads. That would be for the purpose of record. It would be no undue burden on the companies, and it would be very helpful if the next proposal that I am going to make was agreed to by the Committee. I understand, and indeed I am reinforced in that understanding by what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), that if the Committee think fit a Clause will be inserted to the effect that when a service had been firmly established by a railway company and they desire to withdraw it, they should not be able to withdraw it without coming to the Minister of Transport of the day for permission to withdraw it. That is a very important thing. It would prevent the companies starting services for the purpose of under-cutting competitors and then leaving the area derelict, or putting up the rates too much. They would have to satisfy the Minister that they were legitimately entitled to withdraw.
That is a duty which I should not welcome,, and the officers of my Department would certainly not bless it. We have had such unfortunate experiences of the duty of adjudicating between municipalities who are running tram services and private companies running omnibus services whichever side I come down I either get black looks from my hon. Friends here or have to face criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not a power that I should welcome, but, of course, if the Committee thought it right to impose that duty on me, my officers and myself would readily undertake it. Then as regards accounts, I should wish to put to the Committee that I should prescribe the form of accounts for these road services, so as to give a clear indication of the true position of any road transport enterprise. That is essential if we are
to see that Clause 10 is carried out properly. I understand there have been some conversations between the railway companies and the manufacturers of these road vehicles, and that the railway companies have offered that they would not manufacture vehicles or parts of vehicles except the bodies. If agreement can be reached, or if, at any rate, this offer was made, I should suggest to the Committee that this agreement should be embodied in the Bill and not left to some chance document which might afterwards prove not to be legally binding. Then I am quite clear of this—that the Committee must make it certain that the companies are subject to the general law which now is imposed upon other users of the roads. They must go on to the roads on exactly the same terms as other people, and if that were made quite clear by the Committee upstairs it might quieten the fears of some hon. Members opposite.
Finally, as regards safeguards, I propose to call the attention of the Committee to the wide powers which the Bill gives to the companies to invest funds in other transport undertakings. This power, as I see it, will enable the companies to establish subsidiary road transport undertakings, and thereby they might avoid some of the obligations put upon them by Parliament. If that possibility was indicated to the Committee it might well be that they would make that part of the Bill watertight and not allow the companies, if they so wished, by these subsidiary enterprises—probably they do not—to avoid the obligations which other Clauses and other safeguards put upon them. I think hon. Members opposite are rather disturbed by the idea that the Bill, if it becomes law, would in some way hurt their municipal enterprises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I see that I have correctly diagnosed their views. I have sat through the whole of the two Debates on the Bill, except for about ten minutes.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is the view of the municipalities represented in all parts of the House.

Colonel ASHLEY: Naturally, but I prefer to take my views from hon. Members opposite. I have been trying throughout the Debate to find out what are the fears that hon. Members have. The only clue
I have got is a circular which I have received, or which a friend of mine has received and which, I presume, all hon. Members have received, from the Municipal Tramways and Transport Association, Incorporated. I assume that it indicates the fears of hon. Members opposite. If so I will deal with it. The communication, written on behalf of a very important body in this country, says:
It was unanimously decided to invite Members of Parliament not to assent to the Second Reading of the Bills unless the promoters gave a definite assurance that they will not use the powers they are asking for to establish competitive services traversing the same routes as tramways, trolley vehicles and motor omnibuses established under statutory authority.
I cannot understand why hon. Members should think that if the Bills were passed there would be any change in the present system. At the present time in the case of 99 per cent. of our municipal tramways the municipality has power to refuse licences for motor vehicles. If an omnibus company comes along and wants to run an omnibus service in that area, the municipality or the urban council has power to refuse a licence.

Mr. W. THORNE: Not in West Ham.

Colonel ASHLEY: That is in the London area. What I have stated is, broadly speaking, the case. If the omnibus company does not like the decision of the municipality, there is an appeal to me, and I endeavour, as indicated earlier, to do my duty without fear and without favour in the office to which it has pleased the Prime Minister to call me. I cannot satisfy all, but I do my best. What have the municipalities to fear from this Bill? The same power of refusal remains, and can be used against the omnibus run by a railway company, just as against the omnibus run by a private individual or a private company. Therefore, I cannot see why hon. Members opposite should be troubled by this communication from the association who, apparently, are not as fully acquainted with the provisions of the Bill as they might be. I hope I have ben able to allay the fears of hon. Members in this respect. They may not regard me as a very desirable person to whom to appeal but, at any rate, they will not be in any worse position under the provisions of this Bill.
I have endeavoured to show that the Bill involves no new principle. It proposes to extend these powers of the railway companies, but as I have pointed out, if the Committee does its work properly, these great organisations will be restricted more than the other users of the road. In oder to carry out that idea,or partly carry it out, I have already indicated, with a broad brush, what suggestions I shall respectfully make to the Committee—if the Bill goes to a Committee—in order to make the safeguards more secure. I must, however, return to the obvious duties of a Minister on a private Bill. It is not my duty to deal with the merits of a private Bill on Second Reading, and, after all, this is a private Bill. The Government are not responsible for it and I did not initiate it. The promoters of the Bill have stated their case very ably; those who oppose the Bill have been equally effective, and private and sectional interests concerned have expressed their views and fears. But to-night I submit we are not concerned so much with safeguards for traders, or points raised by local authorities, or the fears of road hauliers or agiculturists, because Parliament has appointed a regular procedure for dealing with private and sectional interests. We have the well-known procedure upstairs, under which counsel is briefed, witnesses are examined and cross-examined, and the promoters of the Bill have, first of all, to prove the preamble of the Bill before it is allowed even to go to a Committee. Thus all interests are upheld, and surely this procedure is much superior to discussion on the Floor of the House, where only general principles can be dealt with, and minor points cannot be gone into as they can be gone into upstairs.
I submit that we must decide on broad questions of policy, and there are three main grounds of policy which I should like the House to consider. The House almost invariably gives a private Bill a Second Reading. In fact, it has never, to my knowledge, refused a Second Reading of a private Bill unless the Bill has been shown to be prima facie against the public interest. I put it to the House that in giving a Second Reading to a private Bill such as this, you do not give the same seal of approval to the Bill as you would if it were a public Bill. It
goes upstairs, it has to be discussed in Committee, and then the House can perfectly well, without any inconsistency, reject it on Third Reading. You cannot do that with a public Bill without a great deal of inconsistency, if it has already passed its Second Reading. The next point is this: Has it been proved during the Debate that this Bill is so bad and so contrary to the public interest that it ought to be rejected? I submit very respectfully that, in my opinion, at any rate, that is not so. The last point of the three with which I will deal, and one which has been made by practically every opponent of the Bill, is that this extended power to the railways should not be given until there has been an inquiry with a view to the general co-ordination and control of transport services. It is a very old means of putting off a decision on something which you do not want to be passed to say you will not decide upon it till there has been an inquiry. That is the commonplace which everybody uses to put off the Second Reading of a Bill which they do not like.
As far as the argument goes that if you give this Bill a Second Reading you will be hurting the local authorities and the ratepayers by putting more traffic on the roads, I would say this: If your safeguards are worth anything—and I think the safeguards, amplified in the manner I have indicated, will be worth a very great deal and will be perfectly watertight—you will prevent any rate war or any large and substantial increase of traffic on the roads, apart, of course, from the natural increase of road traffic. This goes on automatically—I am sorry to say, from the point of view of one who has to assist keeping the roads in order—day by day, month by month, and year by year; and it makes not the slightest difference to the local ratepayers, who have to keep up the roads, whether the natural increase of traffic is carried on under the name of a private individual or by a motor omnibus or a lorry owned by a railway company.
The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) made a very interesting contribution to our Debates yesterday. Perhaps his points were not so clearly put or so effective as usual, but then we all know that he was speaking under somewhat difficult
domestic circumstances, and my admiration, if I may say so, for the right hon. Gentleman's power of speech was increased by the ability with which he steered clear of these controversial points. I want to say one word about the Road Traffic Bill, which he mentioned, and which the Government have promised to put through, if Parliamentary time allows, next Session. I think the passing of that Bill will meet the conditions, largely, which the hon. Member for Paisley outlined. It will meet, I hope, the fears of hon. Members opposite as regards their local authorities and their licences, and if the House will allow me, I would like to read one Clause of that Bill, which deals with public service vehicles, that is to say, passenger vehicles plying for hire, to show that we hope, if this Bill becomes law within 12 months, to have a great many of the anomalies, the inconsistencies, and the dangers which now exist as regards public service vehicles abolished. The draft Bill says:
A person shall not use a vehicle or permit it to bo used as a stage carriage unless he is the holder of a road service licence issued in accordance with the provision of this Part of this Act.
The people who broadly are to issue licences are the county boroughs, urban areas over 20,000 population and county councils. What does this road service licence entail?
To a road service licence may be attached such conditions as the licensing authority … may think fit for securing the establishment or maintenance of a suitable service of stage carriages or express carriages as the case may be, and for securing that the route to be followed shall be suitable and that the vehicles to be used shall in design, construction, and equipment be suitable to the route, and in the case of a service of stage carriages also securing (a) that the fares shall not be unreasonably high; (b) that where desirable in the public interest the fares shall be so fixed as to prevent wasteful competition with alternative forms of transport (if any) along the route or any part thereof, in proximity thereto.
I would point out to hon. Members who have fears in regard to local authorities that the local authorities will be given most extensive powers to see that these vehicles are properly manned and found, and that the person who uses these vehicles, if any accident takes place, shall be secured in getting compensation
money if he is hurt. As to the question of a general inquiry raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh, here I think he does not show that foresight and caution which characterised him when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What did he say about the general inquiry? He said, "Oh, let the Minister of Transport look in a few pigeon-holes at the Ministry, let the President of the Board of Trade do the same, and let a few extracts be made from Blue Books, give them to half-a-dozen people, with wet towels round their heads, for two or three weeks, and then you can have your report ready for publication and ready to be put in the form of a Bill." I would ask the House to consider whether it is possible to deal in this way with the question which, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, may raise in an acute form the idea of nationalisation of all our transport services? Can it be possible that in so short a time you can deal with so vast and important a subject? The Government will go on with the inquiry without undue delay, but it must be allowed to take the Inquiry in its own time and use channels which it thinks proper.
Finally, do let us do something to help the railway companies. It is absolutely vital for this country that we should have an efficient railway service. Great schemes of electrification are being mooted; they will require capital, and capital is not easy to obtain by the railways nowadays, and if it will do something to help on that electrification it will be a great step in advance. The General Strike brought many blessings in disguise, and not the least was the fact that the railway interests, both employers and employed, came to the conclusion that it was better to work in friendly cooperation rather than to go on in snarling aloofness. They have been carrying out that co-operation in a way which I never thought it was possible for a great corporation: I thought it possible only in the case of old-fashioned private employers. Let us approach the decision of this subject this evening in that spirit. If in Committee upstairs there could be a little give-and-take, a little appreciation of the point-of-view of each other, a practical and a working scheme can be evolved.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There are only two observations which I wish to make on the speech we have just heard. I do not apologise for the postcards the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport has received. It is a good thing that one representing a dead-head constituency, as he does, where there is neither energy nor intellect, should at least be reminded that there are intelligent citizens in this country. I do not quite understand his reference to "the Members opposite" in connection with their interests in municipalities. I do hope he does not infer that none of the gentlemen on his side of the House has any interest in municipalities, but he seemed to direct his remarks on that point exclusively to this side of the House. I hope that on this, as on all public questions, whatever differences there may be, the House will show itself, as it invariably does, not unmindful of the fact that the public interest is supreme in all matters. In saying that, I would ask the House to observe that this Debate in itself is the best evidence of Parliamentary protection. The Bill, shortly, asks the permission of Parliament to do a certain thing. Taking the most extravagant illustration of the Bill, letting anybody define it in any way he likes, can any hon. or right hon. Member in any part of the House deny that if this Bill were rejected a thousand private companies could be set up on the roads of this country to-morrow to do precisely the same thing as the railway companies are asking the permission of Parliament to be allowed to do, and that Parliament would have no voice whatever in the matter? Let the House keep that fundamental point in mind. The Bill which we are now asked to vote upon gives Parliament, and rightly so, the power not only to sanction and to ratify but to insert safeguards in matter which any private company could undertake to-morrow without Parliament having any jurisdiction at all. If that be the exact position, I put it to hon. Members that the onus ought to be on those rejecting and opposing the Measure to show that not only are these powers unwise, but that those asking for them are incapable of properly exercising them. That is a fair proposition, and one that hon. Members ought to answer and must answer if they wish to give a conscientious vote. The rejection of this
Measure was moved by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) and it was seconded by the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey), and both those hon. Members contradicted themselves in the reasons they gave for the rejection of this Measure. I am now speaking within the recollection of those who heard the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the rejection. The Mover of the Amendment said that this Bill would mean less road transport, and the Seconder said, "I wish this Bill to be rejected because there are already too many people on the roads, and I do not want any more." Those are the reasons given by the Mover and Seconder for the rejection of this Bill. Curiously enough, the Mover of the rejection also said that a previous Bill conferring these powers was passed by the House of Commons and was submitted to a Committee upstairs, and the Committee had reported adversely on the Bill.

Mr. LAMB: indicated dissent.

Mr. THOMAS: I thought the hon. Member might dispute my statement and I will read a quotation from his speech.
I put forward that argument quite seriously. The previous Committee which considered this question said quite definitely in their Report that this further extension of the powers of the railway companies should not be given; that powers should not be given to railway companies to run on the roads in the interests of the public. If I had time I could give hon. Members the reference."—[OFFICAL REFFORT, 28th February, 1928; col. 313, Vol. 214.]

Mr. LAMB: I did not say a Committee of this House. I referred to the Report of the 1921 Committee.

Mr. THOMAS: I have been reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but if the hon. Member says that his remarks had reference only to the Act of 1921, I accept his statement. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on that point, I will bring the House much more up-to-date. Following the Act of 1921, the London and North Western Railway Company introduced a Bill in this House asking for precisely the same powers as those which are contained in the Bill which we are now discussing. That Bill not only obtained a Second Reading, but was considered upstairs by a Committee of this House. There were differences in
connection with the Ministry of Transport and the companies, but that Committee of this House reported as follows:
The case for the petitioners was not fully before the Committee, but, subject to the possibility of eliminating unfair competition, the Committee are unanimously of opinion that it would be in the public interest to allow the fullest possible participation by the railway companies of this group and all competitors in the service of road transport.
Therefore, I would ask the House to consider first this point. In 1922, the House of Commons gave a Second Reading to a Bill and said, "We want this Bill examined by our own colleagues impartially and fairly." That Bill dealt with the same problem which we are now discussing, with this difference, that, viewed purely from the standpoint of the railway companies, the problem was not then so serious as it is to-day. Notwithstanding that fact, a Committee of all parties in this House made the recommendation that I have just submitted. Therefore, I am sure my hon. Friend will not disagree with me when I say that, if he had in mind the 1921 Committee—which I did not understand to be the case when he spoke—I am at least entitled to answer him by saying that this statement which I have just quoted is the last authoritative statement on this subject.
Every speaker in opposition to this Bill seemed to rely upon the one stock argument, "Oh, yes, this may be good, it may be desirable, but let it happen after there has been an inquiry." There are some in this House who know the full significance of that plausible argument, but there are others who do not. Do not those who say, "We are prepared to grant this after an inquiry," know that they are not asking for the status quo, but that, if there were a Royal Commission to-morrow, or a Committee of Inquiry of any sort or kind, every competitor of the railway companies could go on notwithstanding any inquiry? Let me draw the attention of the House to two significant proofs of that. Last Saturday week there appeared in the daily Press the prospectus of an Edinburgh company. As the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford), who spoke earlier in the Debate, and who spoke in the interests of the Edinburgh Corporation, knows, there was—

Sir P. FORD: I spoke entirely as an individual. I pointed out that I had no financial interest in the matter, and was not speaking for the corporation, but as a man in the street trying to interpret the wishes of my constituents.

Mr. THOMAS: I said in the interest of the Edinburgh Corporation.

Sir P. FORD: No, not even in the interest of the corporation.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry, because I assume that Members of Parliament generally look to their corporation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member who spoke of the man in the street, and in the street of Edinburgh in particular, will observe that there was a prospectus setting out the advantages of a particular Edinburgh company which made it quite clear that hundreds of omnibuses were to be put on the road immediately. I have no hesitation in associating myself whole-heartedly with every detail of my right hon. Friend's speech last night, and I believe an inquiry is essential, but let the opponents of the Bill be quite frank and say they know perfectly well that by using the excuse of an inquiry the competitors of the railway companies can do just as they like, even while the inquiry is on, without any interference whatever. Let me also draw attention to the fact that nearly two years ago, as the Minister of Transport will remember, the railway companies, accompanied by the railway representatives of the trade unions, waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself and were the first to urge an inquiry. This problem was so serious and so difficult that we urged an inquiry then and now we find the Government doing nothing, and after two years the opponents coming along and saying, "The first thing we want is an inquiry."
Now let us face the question as to whether it is equitable or not. I take this view. I do not believe that I am entitled in this House to assume that those who are opposing this Measure do so purely for their private interests and disregarding any public interest. I take the view that, whatever conditions there may be, every Member feels that he is serving the public interest in the vote he is giving. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) put it quite clearly when he said he did not
believe the railway companies were philanthropists, and of course he is not only speaking truth in saying that, but he would be foolish to assume otherwise. And no one would believe that he himself was a philanthropist. In other words, we are all on an equal footing in that respect. The last person to assume that role would by myself. But I would ask the House to consider this short point of competition. I can quite understand the feeling existing as to whether the railway companies are fairly treated or not. I quite understand people saying, "If they are not fairly treated let us give them a chance." I would state that aspect of the question in a few sentences.
Take a short trip from here to Reading by rail. Every Member knows perfectly well that every mile of the permanent way on the railway from here to Reading is paid for and maintained wholly and solely by the shareholders' money. There is no disputing that. Everyone knows that the signal-boxes and the signalmen from here to Reading are maintained by the railway companies. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the public!"] An hon. Member says, "And the public." Someone, I suppose, is bound to travel on the railways, or there would be none. Therefore, having stated that simple proposition, let me now take the journey from London to Reading by road. I ask any Member of the House to deny that in actual travelling the simple illustration I have given is applicable all over the country, and I ask whether those who are competing, either in taking passengers or goods from London to Reading, maintain or pay for and are wholly responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads? As far as the signalman is concerned on the London to Reading road he is the policeman. [An HON. MEMBER: "A.A."] I am not talking about those who are engaged in breaking the law. I am dealing with a simple question of those who, under Government and local authorities, are controlling and doing, in other words, precisely the same work as the signalmen. Therefore, viewed purely from that point of view as to whether it is fair or equitable, I content myself with asking Members when they vote this evening, can they vote against a corporation, private company, or public
utility company having precisely the same rights as ratepayers as are enjoyed by other sections of the community? That is the broad question which has got to be answered in this connection.
I come to what I may call the more selfish side, as to why railwaymen are willing and anxious to support this Bill. I would direct my remarks particularly to some of my hon. Friends who have criticised this Bill from this side of the House. Last night the Minister of Labour was bombarded with questions and criticisms, with which I associated myself, with regard to what is called the Washington Convention. Stripped of everything else, what we on this side mean by the ratification of the Washington Convention is that labour, paid decently, shall not be brought down by sweated labour. That is what we mean on this side, and applying that same altruistic principle to the railwaymen, I repeat that I do not want their economic standard brought down by the sweated conditions of others.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Fight for transport workers!

Mr. THOMAS: I quite understand the interruption of an expert transport worker. I am quite sure that there we have a statement made with that heartfelt sympathy due from practical experience. I am fighting for all workers who recognise that if they have to compete fairly and squarely, whether it be under a form of Government or under a social system, if a standard of living is demanded and obtained for one class of worker and a lower standard exists in other classes that inevitably is used to bring down the standard of the other. Therefore, if that is not right in method, it is an English conception. I have endeavoured not to be personal. I have endeavoured to put the case, not only from the public point of view but to tell the House quite frankly why the railwaymen feel a keen interest in this particular matter.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Why not fight for transport workers?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS: I never believe in interfering with good work, and I should be very interested to know that the championship of the transport workers is now
left in that channel. I now come to one other argument that was used—[An HON. MFIMBER: "Talk it out."] The hon. Member who interrupts could not have been here at 3.45 to vote. I now come to one other argument, and it is this. I will not detain the House long, but I want to meet quite fairly what is a legitimate anxiety on the part of friends of mine on this side of the House as well as, I hope, on the other side. It is, What is going to happen to the municipal authorities if this Bill be passed? I know that there is not only a strong feeling but a natural anxiety existing on this side of the House and, I believe, on the other. Let me endeavour to put the position fairly to the House. Under this Bill, even without the Amendment outlined by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the railway companies neither seek, ask, nor desire any privileges whatever, either for passenger or goods vehicles, which are not exercised to-day by any or every private corporation. Let me explain the exact position. The anomaly existing at this moment is, that anybody can run on the road as far as goods are concerned, without any licence whatever. Let the House keep that clearly in mind. No licence whatever is required under the existing law for an individual or a corporation to run goods traffic. I am dealing with facts, and I challenge anyone to deny what I have now said. Although no licence is required in that respect, under the existing law a licence is required from the municipality as far as the hire of passenger vehicles is concerned. Even that provision is subject to the veto of the Minister of Transport. The railway companies have inserted in these Bills a Clause, and they have stated to me, and I say it publicly on their behalf, that if this Clause does not seem clear and definite, laying it down that they require no more power of any sort or kind that is not now granted to existing bodies competing on the road, then that can be made perfectly clear in Committee upstairs. With these safeguards, what other objection is there against the Second Reading of this Bill?
I regret that the Seconder of the Motion for Rejection and one or two other speakers thought fit to rebuke the railwaymen and myself for our action.
I ask the House, in my final sentences, to consider the position. We have been criticised and we have been held up to ridicule and abuse because of the tendency to forget that there are occasions when the interests of the employés are not foreign to the interests of their employers. We have often been accused that labour would not assist in helping to develop and encourage their industry. Surely, if when the occasion arises, that capital and labour, employer and employed, feel not only that their own interests, but the interests of the country are not imperilled by their joint action, it does not lie with hon. Members to twit us about an unholy alliance. I shall always take my stand in defending the interests of the people I represent, and I am not so blind as to lead them into a policy that will not, in the end, be to their best interests. Believe me, the interests of the railway companies, the interests of the railwaymen and the interests of the public will be served by the verdict which will be given in the Lobby in a few minutes time.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: —

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) was referred to in the last speech and I think he should be heard.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I do not intend to detain the House with any vexatious arguments. I want to make it quite clear why I have made up my mind to vote against this Bill, especially in the interests of railway workers who are being misled into believing that it is their interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] We have been told that this Bill will not be what it is now after it has been through Committee, and that therefore we should vote for the Second Reading. If there is any sense in that argument it means that this House should never vote against the Second Reading of any Bill on the supposition that it may be entirely altered in Committee upstairs. The other argument is that the safeguards in Clause 7 are sufficient. If Clause 7 is to operate in a genuine manner then these Bills are not required, because railway

shareholders who are combined together in an association 60,000 strong, can tomorrow put up sufficient capital to run as many transport services as they desire without any interference from anybody. What Clause 7 fails to do is to safeguard the wages and standard of living of the workers. There is nothing in it which guarantees any standard of wages—

Mr. BROMLEY: We will see to that.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) take a certain amount of pride, and perhaps rightly so, for the manner in which the wages of the railway workers are safeguarded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—and we are told that that constitutes an argument in favour of passing this Bill. In my opinion, it constitutes an argument for turning down the Bill. What is the General Council for? What is the Trade Union Congress for? If the wages of the workers are to be safeguarded, the only means at the disposal of the representatives of the working class is to see that the transport workers and the railway workers, not the railway workers and the railway directors, are brought together, and that a general movement in support of wages and hours for all transport workers formed. That is the right way for working class repre sentatives to fight [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] If it happens not to be the Derby way, but happens to be the Russian way, it is the only right way of solidising the workers. That will not be done by neglecting altogether the hours and conditions of workers in sister industries. Therefore, I submit on behalf of a few thousand railway workers who are seduced by false arguments by the Great Western Railway Company in my constituency, that this House should not pass these Bills at all, because there is not one word in any Clause which safeguards the wages and hours of the workers.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 399; Noes, 42.

Division No. 21.]
AYES.
[11.11 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derby)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Albery, Irving James
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Ammon, Charles George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Apsley, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henn, Sir Sydney H


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt, Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hilton, Cecil


Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hirst, G. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Barnes, A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Barr, J.
Day, Harry
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Batey, Joseph
Dennison, R.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P, H.
Drewe, C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Duckworth, John
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Duncan, C.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bennett, A. J.
Edge, Sir William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Berry, Sir George
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Betterton, Henry B.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ellis, R. G.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
England, Colonel A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Blundell, F. N.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fenby, T. D.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Fermoy, Lord
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Finburgh, S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Forrest, W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brass, Captain W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Briant, Frank
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briggs, J. Harold
Gardner, J. P.
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement


Briscoe, Richard George
Gates, Percy
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lansbury, George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lawrence, Susan


Bromfield, William
Glbbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Goff, Sir Park
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gower, Sir Robert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Buchan, John
Grace, John
Loder, J. de V.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Long, Major Eric


Buckingham, Sir H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Looker, Herbert William


Bullock, Captain M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lougher, Lewis


Burman, J. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lowth, T.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greenall, T.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lumley, L. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maclntyre, Ian


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mackinder, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Macnaghten, Hon Sir Malcolm


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston spencer
Hamilton, Sir George
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Clayton, G. C.
Hammersley, S. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cluse, W. S.
Hanbury, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Malone, Major P. B.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hardie, George D.
Margesson, Captain D.


Compton, Joseph
Harland, A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Connolly, M.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harney, E. A.
Meller, R. J.


Cope, Major William
Hartington, Marquess of
Merriman, F. B


Couper, J. B.
Hayday, Arthur
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mltchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle)
Montague, Frederick




Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Salmon, Major I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tomlinson, R. P.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


Mosley, Oswald
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Murnin, H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Varley, Frank B.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Savery, S. S.
Viant, S. P.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Waddington, R.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Oakley, T.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oliver, George Harold
Sitch, Charles H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Skelton, A. N.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Owen, Major G.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Paling, W.
Smillie, Robert
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Penny, Frederick George
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighlty)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Perring, Sir William George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Philipson, Mabel
smithers, Waldron
Welsh, J. C.


Pilcher, G.
Snell, Harry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Potts, John S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wiggins, William Martin


Power, Sir John Cecll
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Preston, William
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Raine, Sir Walter
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)


Ramsden, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Storry-Deans, R.
Windsor, Walter


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Strauss, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Withers, John James


Remnant, Sir James
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Womersley, W. J.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Sullivan, J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sutton, J. E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Riley, Ben
Templeton, W. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Thom, Lt.Col, J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wright, W.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Major Hills and Mr. j H. Thomas.


NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rose, Frank H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Haslam, Henry C.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Scrymgeour, E.


Cassols, J. D.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kelly, W. T,
Sexton, James


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tinne, J. A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Naylor, T. E.



Groves, T.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harrison, G. J. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Lamb and Sir Basil Peto.


Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motions on the Order Paper in regard to committing the Bill to a Select Committee or to a Joint Committee of both Houses, cannot be taken until the Bill has been reported upon by the Examiners.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL (By Order).

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL (By Order).

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL (By Order).

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL (By Order).

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Ordered,
That the Lords Message (23rd February) communicating the Resolution, "That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament,
and to consider, with a view to reporting if necessary thereon, any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India," be now considered.

Lords Message considered accordingly

Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolulution."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes after Eleven o'Clock.